UC-NRLF 

nil 


llllll 


$B    EMI    T7M 


Jame^   Jf€acKaye 


AMERICANIZED 
SOCIALISM 

A  Yankee  View 
of  Capitalism 

BY 

JAMES  MACKAYE 

AUTHOR  OF  "the  ECONOMY  OF  HAPPINESS," 
"the  happiness  of  NATIONS,"  ETC. 


NEW  YORK 

BONI  AND   LIVERIGHT 

1918 


Corarright,  19x8, 
Bt  BONI  &  LIV£RIGHT«  Inc. 


PREFACE 

Socialists  differ  about  the  philosophy  and  the  tactics 
of  socialism,  but  they  agree  about  its  program.  Ad- 
herence to  the  program  therefore  is  the  test  of  a 
socialist.  Morris  Hillquit,  probably  the  best  authority 
on  orthodox  socialism  in  America,  is  fully  in  agree- 
ment with  this  position,  as  shown  by  the  following 
quotation  from  an  article  in  the  Metropolitan  Mctga- 
sine  for  July,  1912: 

"Stated  in  .  .  .  concrete  terms,  the  Socialist  program  requires 
the  public  or  collective  ownership  and  operation  of  the  principal 
instrtunents  and  agencies  for  the  production  and  distribution  of 
wealth.  The  land,  mines,  railroads,  steamboats,  telegraph  and 
telephone  lines,  mills,  factories,  and  modem  machinery.  This 
is  the  main  program,  and  the  ultimate  aim  of  the  whole  Socialist 
movement,  the  political  creed  of  all  Socialists.  It  is  the  unfailing 
test  of  Socialist  adherence,  and  admits  of  no  limitation,  exten- 
sion, or  variation.  Whoever  accepts  this  program  is  a  Socialist; 
whoever  does  not,  is  not." 

On  the  basis  of  this  definition,  no  doubt  many  per- 
sons who  did  not  suspect  themselves  to  be  socialists 
will  discover  that  they  are.  They  will  see  that  social- 
ism and  common  sense  have  a  closer  connection  than 
some  reports  have  led  them  to  believe. 

The  program  of  socialism  rests  both  on  a  material 
and  a  moral  foundation.  The  material  foundation  of 
socialism  as  expounded  in  the  philosophy  of  Karl  Marx 
is  not  the  theme  of  the  following  chapters.  They  are 
concerned  more  particularly  with  the  moral  founda- 
tion, which  deserves  greater  attention  than  it  has  here- 
tofore received  because  the  justification  of  any  pro- 


J^RSSfiS 


vi  PREFACE 


posed  program  must,  in  the  final  analysis,  be  a  moral 
one.    The  moral  foundation  of  socialism  is  to  be  found 
in  the  philosophy  of  utility,  which  tests  all  acts  or 
courses  of  action  by  their  presumable  power  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  mankind ;  and  if  socialism  cannot  be 
justified  by  its  usefulness  it  cannot  be  justified  at  all. 
Reasons  for  claiming  that  a  socialism  grounded  in 
the  philosophy  of  utility  embodies  the  best  traditions 
of  Americanism  will  be  found  in  the  pages  to  follow. 
These    reasons    have    not    been    generally    recognized 
heretofore  because  the  Americanism  of  the  men  who 
founded,  and  those  who  saved,  this  Republic  has  in 
the  last  generation  or  so  been  superseded  by  a  Toryism 
identical  in  spirit  with  that  against  which  they  con- 
tended.    Indeed,  the  proportion  of  Tories  in  America 
to-day  is  greater  than  in  the  time  of  our  Revolution. 
But  true  Americanism  during  the  last  generation 
has  not  been  dead ;  it  has  merely  been  sleeping.    With 
the  entrance  of  this  country  into  a  war  for  democracy 
it  has  once  more  revived,  and  already  is  beginning  to 
rebuild  our  Tory  economic  institutions   on  the  old 
American  principles.     Such  a  revival  of  Americanism 
should  not  only  be   everywhere  encouraged  to  the 
utmost,  but  should  be  recognized  for  what  it  really  is; 
and  it  is  the  main  object  of  the  following  exposition 
Ptherefore  to  point  out  how  the  original  principles  of 
[Yankee  democracy,  applied  to  modern  industrial  cqn- 
/ditions,  not  only  justify  the  program  of  socialism,  but 
/  supply  a  practical  American  tactic  for  bringing  it  to 
/  pass. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Introduction i 

I  Americanism  and  Socialism 5 

II   The  Perversion  of  Property     ....     31 

III  Why  the  Capitalist  is  Not  a  Robber      .     53 

IV  Applying  Engineering  to  Politics  .     .     .     78 
V  What  is  Efficiency? 103 

.  VI  What  is  Democracy? 129 

v'll   How   to   Combine    Democracy   with   Ef- 
ficiency       143 

VIII  The  Transition  to  Socialism     •     .     .     .176 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witin  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/americanizedsociOOmackricli 


AMERICANIZED 
SOCIALISM 


AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 


INTRODUCTION 

Applying  Old  Principles  to  New  Issues.  That  land 
is  fortunate  which  can  appeal  to  tradition  and  reason 
at  the  same  time.  So  far  as  the  principal  domestic 
issue  now  before  its  people  is  concerned,  our  land  is 
thus  fortunate.  The  problem  presented  by  the  issue 
of  capitalism  vs.  socialism  in  this  country  is  an  old 
problem  in  a  new  form,  and  the  main  purpose  of  this 
book  is  to  suggest  how  the  solutions  found  practical 
in  the  past  may  be  applied  in  the  present 

What  America  Needs  to  Learn.  The  practice  of 
'democracy  in  this  country  has  revealed  both  the 
strength  and  the  weakness  of  the  principle.  It  has 
proven  to  be,  not  an  assurance,  but  only  a  condition, 
of  national  well  being,  a  necessary,  but  not  a  sufficient, 
guarantee  of  the  success  of  nations.  The  test  of  the 
value  of  a  means  is  the  achievement  of  its  end,  and 
democracy  can  only  meet  this  test  by  adopting  the 
practice  of  efficiency,  for  both  democracy  and  effi- 
ciency are  essential  to  the  happiness  of  peoples. 

A  hundred  and  forty  years  ago  America  learned  the 
lesson  of  democracy  from  hard  experience  with  the 
principle  of  European  monarchy.  To-day  from  a  simi- 
lar source  of  instruction  she  is  given  the  opportunity 
to  learn  the  lesson  of  efficiency. 

What  European  Experience  can  Teach.  The  wis- 
dom of  nations  as  of  men  may  be  measured  by  their 

1 


^       AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

. "V'  ;    ,.    ->u: l^_,    ^      •  I 

ability  to  learn  from  the  experience  of  others,  and  the 
present  workings  of  the  principle  of  monarchy  in 
Europe,  if  the  lessons  they  are  adapted  to  teach  are 
learned,  may  be  turned  from  a  curse  into  a  blessing. 

Modern  war  is  fought  by  machinery ;  it  is  but  indus- 
trialism applied  to  destructive  instead  of  constructive 
ends,  and  only  a  vast  preponderance  of  other  favorable 
factors  will  enable  an  industrially  ineflficient  nation 
to  prevail  over  an  efficient  one. 

The  war  in  Europe  has  plainly  proved  that  the  key 
note  of  industrial  efficiency  is  collectivism.  Germany 
with  her  inferior  resources  prevailed  over  her  enemies 
so  long,  because  through  the  more  perfect  centraliza- 
tion and  co-ordination  of  her  powers  she  was  better 
able  to  focus  the  whole  effort  of  the  nation  on  a  single 
object.  Individualism  against  collectivism  in  modem 
war,  or  in  any  other  branch  of  modern  industry,  is  a 
bow  and  arrow  against  a  repeating  rifle;  a  lesson 
which  all  the  nations  of  Europe  are  now  rapidly 
learning,  some  of  them  much  against  their  theories  and 
therefore  against  their  will. 

Although  Germany's  industrialism  is  highly  collec- 
tivist  it  is  not  democratic,  and  therefore  does  not  seek 
a  democratic  goal.  It  employs  modern  means  to 
medieval  ends.  Germany  is  combining  efficiency  with 
autocracy,  and  that  means  efficiency  for  the  benefit 
of  autocracy.  Her  victory,  had  she  achieved  it,  would  only 
have  glorified  her  king  at  the  expense  of  her  own  as 
well  as  other  peoples,  just  as  all  wars  urged  and  won 
by  kings  have  always  done.  This  is  as  true  of  Austria 
and  Turkey  as  of  Germany.  Their  rulers  all  seek 
autocratic  ends,  even  if  less  efficiently  than  Germany. 
If  this  war  benefits  the  cause  of  democracy  it  is  only 
because  kings  have  rashly  loosed  educational  forces 
too  strong  for  them  to  control. 


INTRODUCTION 3 

The  fact  that  Germany  at  present  is  an  intelligent 
autocracy  which  has  sought  the  material  well  being 
of  its  people  as  one  means  to  the  well  being  of  their 
rulers,  mitigates,  but  does  not  reverse,  the  rule.  In 
the  long  run  autocracy  is  a  ghastly  failure,  as  the  his- 
tory of  Europe,  particularly  the  history  now  in  the 
making,  proves.  It  perverts  whatever  it  touches, 
causing  the  best  of  means  to  serve  the  worst  of  ends. 
The  greatest  service  kings  have  ever  rendered  a  people 
is  to  teach  them  that  it  is  better  for  them  to  rule 
themselves. 

Efficiency  Not  Inseparable  from  Oligarchy.  Be- 
cause in  the  case  of  Germany  efficiency  is  associated 
with  autocracy,  many  persons  infer  that  it  is  peculiar 
to  that  form  of  government,  overlooking  the  wretched 
inefficiency  of  almost  every  other  autocracy  in  the 
world  or  in  history.  There  is  in  fact  no  necessary 
connection  between  oligarchy  and  efficiency.  There 
is  no  reason  why  efficiency  cannot  be  combined  with 
democracy  and  applied  as  successfully  to  the  service 
of  the  people  as  to  that  of  kings.  Democratic  collec- 
tivism can  do  for  peoples  what  oligarchic  collectivism 
can  do  for  oligarchs,  either  in  peace  or  war,  for  col- 
lectivism is  only  a  means,  and  can  be  devoted  as  well 
to  a  useful  as  to  a  harmful  end. 

America  Should  Reject  Inefficiency  as  Well  as  Oli- 
garchy. How  to  combine  efficiency  with  democracy, 
then,  how  to  induce  men  to  work  together  for  good 
as  effectively  as  in  Germany  they  have  worked  together 
for  evil,  is  a  problem  that  may  well  occupy  the  thought 
of  our  country  in  its  present  condition  of  transition. 
The  United  States  has  made  the  best  start  in  de- 
mocracy of  all  the  great  nations  of  the  earth.  She  is 
the  logical  country  to  solve  this  problem,  and  she  can 


4       AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

solve  it  by  showing  the  same  willingness  to  accept  the 
teachings  of  experience  that  she  showed  four  genera- 
tions ago.  It  is  well  to  love  your  enemies,  but  also 
well  to  learn  from  them.  Let  us  adopt  the  good, 
while  opposing  the  evil,  in  German  institutions,  emulat- 
ing the  efficiency  of  Germany  while  rejecting  her  per- 
version thereof,  thus  devoting  science  to  the  salvation, 
instead  of  the  subjection,  of  mankind. 


I 

AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM 

Socialism  "Made  in  America."  Not  long  ago  I  was 
talking  to  a  typical  old  time  Yankee  farmer,  a  veteran 
of  the  Civil  War,  and  a  man  imbued  from  his  youth 
with  the  traditional  American  way  of  thinking.  He 
asked  me  to  tell  him  what  socialism  was.  He  said  he 
had  read  about  it  in  the  newspapers  but  could  not 
make  out  what  it  meant.  I  told  him  in  brief  that  it 
meant  the  operation  by  public  officials  in  the  public 
interest  of  the  railroads,  coal  mines,  steel  works,  cot- 
ton mills  and  similar  industrial  activities  by  which  the 
public  would  supply  themselves  with  substantially  all 
the  things  they  needed  at  cost,  in  much  the  same  way 
as  they  now  supplied  themselves  with  postal  facilities 
through  the  postoffice. 

"Is  that  socialism?"  said  he.  "Why,  I  have  believed 
in  that  for  years.  I  have  often  talked  it  over  down  at 
the  store,  and  lots  of  folks  around  here  think  as  I  do 
about  it." 

This  experience  is  quite  a  common  one  with  me. 
I  find  wherever  I  go  among  old  time  Americans  that 
the  essentials  of  socialism  are  understood  and  accepted, 
often  with  enthusiasm.  Indeed,  there  are  rather  good 
reasons  for  thinking  that  a  large  minority,  perhaps  a 
majority,  of  the  people  of  this  country  already  are  dis- 
posed to  believe  in  the  program  of  socialism,  and 
would  vote  for  it  if  it  were  presented  to  them  in  the 
terms  in  which  they  think.     I  am  at  least  aware  that 

5 


6       AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

the  majority  of  men  with  whom  I  am  well  enough 
acquainted  to  know  their  real  views,  including  busi- 
ness, professional,  working  men  and  farmers,  are  be- 
lievers in  socialism,  though  very  few  vote  the  socialist 
ticket. 

Now  why  is  this?  Is  it  because  they  are  not  really 
socialists  at  heart  and  do  not  really  understand  the 
issues  involved?  By  no  means.  While  they  have  no 
thorough  grasp  of  the  principles  underlying  socialism 
they  understand  it  at  least  as  well  as  the  average  mem- 
ber of  the  Socialist  party,  though  they  think  in  a  very 
different,  not  to  say  a  more  practical,  way  about  it. 
The  Socialist  party,  though  seeking  a  splendid  ideal, 
and  one  which  must  appeal  with  particular  power  to 
people  reared  among  American  traditions — the  ideal 
of  a  co-operative  commonwealth — employs  tactics  so 
defective  that  it  may  be  seriously  questioned  whether 
its  activity  is  not  more  of  a  harm  than  a  help  to  the 
progress  of  industrial  democracy  in  this  country.  To 
the  average  party  socialist  practical  socialism  is  little 
more  than  a  tail  to  the  labor  union  kite,  a  movement 
to  make  the  manual  worker  dominant  in  politics ;  while 
theoretical  socialism  is  more  a  matter  of  words  than 
of  ideas.  It  is  a  language  rather  than  a  philosophy  or 
a  plan.  A  few  formulas  containing  the  words  working 
class,  exploitation,  class  struggle,  surplus  value,  class 
consciousness,  economic  determinism,  and  some  others 
"made  in  Germany"  constitute  his  philosophy  of 
socialism,  and  with  these  he  seeks  to  convince  the 
American  people.  Of  course  he  fails,  not  because  the 
people  are  not  ready  for  the  issue,  but  because  the  Social- 
ist party  does  not  know  how  to  present  it,  does  not 
grasp  the  American  way  of  thinking,  nor  speak  the 
traditional  American  language. 

The  old  time  American  of  whom  I  just  spoke  and 
those  like  him  all  over  the  United  States  make  nothing 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM      7 

f  ! 

out  of  the  orthodox  socialist  lingo.  It  is  all  Greek  to 
them.  It  may  be  all  right  in  Europe  where  the  demo- 
cratic tradition  does  not  generally  exist,  but  in  this 
country  men  think  in  terms  of  the  traditions  common 
to  the  country,  and  to  them  the  reasoning  which  leads 
to  socialism  is  much  shorter,  clearer  and  easier  than 
that  furnished  by  the  Marxian  philosophy.  A  brief 
glance  at  the  development  of  American  institutions 
will  show  how  genuine  socialism  rationally  follows 
from  universally  accepted  American  traditions  familiar 
to  every  American  school-boy.  Indeed  the  American 
theory  of  popular  government,  which  no  politician  in 
the  country  would  dare  in  terms  to  oppose,  furnishes 
the  necessary  and  sufficient  premises  on  which  the 
doctrine  of  socialism  rests.  All  the  socialist  need  do 
is  to  draw  the  conclusion.  It  will  not  take  a  very 
long  story  to  show  this. 

Monarchy,  Slavery,  and  Capitalism.  When  our 
fathers  settled  the  wilderness  which  is  now  the  United 
States  of  America  they  transplanted  here  the  institu- 
tions of  seventeenth  century  England.  Some  of  these 
institutions  were  good,  some  were  bad,  some  took  root 
and  flourished,  others  languished  and  decayed,  accord- 
ing as  they  were  well  or  ill  adapted  to  the  environment 
of  the  new  land.  In  addition  to  these,  others  were 
adopted  from  the  natives  or  the  neighboring  colonies. 

Among  these  institutions  were  three  which  consti- 
tuted grave  menaces  to  the  welfare  of  the  American 
people,  because  they  were  institutions  of  privilege,  by 
which  I  mean  institutions  in  virtue  of  which  one  indi- 
vidual, class  or  aggregate  of  men  can  live  upon  the 
labor  and  control  the  lives  of  other  individuals,  classes 
or  aggregates.  In  colonial  times  two  of  these  institu- 
tions were  in  an  advanced  stage  of  development  and 
the  third  in  its  infancy. 


8        AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 


The  most  revered  of  the  three  was  a  practice  by 
which  the  control  of  the  lives  and  property  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  colonies  was  in  large  measure  in  the  power 
of  the  imperial  government,  consisting  of  a  small  class 
of  persons  in  Great  Britain,  the  landed  aristocracy, 
represented  by  the  king  and  parliament.  Within 
wide  limits  this  small  class  could,  if  they  willed,  con- 
trol the  life  and  liberty  and  by  taxation  dispose  of  the 
property  of  any  citizen  of  America  without  his  consent. 
This  variety  of  oligarchy  is  known  as  the  institution  of 
autocracy  or  monarchy,  because  of  its  concentration 
of  power  in  the  person  of  the  autocrat  or  monarch. 

The  second  of  these  institutions  of  privilege,  which 
was  falling  into  disrepute  in  late  colonial  times,  was 
one  by  which  control  of  one  person  over  another  was 
realized  through  actual  ownership  of  the  person  con- 
trolled. Thus  the  life  and  labor  of  one  class  was  at 
the  disposal  of  another  in  the  sariie  way  that  the  life 
and  labor  of  horses  or  oxen  is  at  the  disposal  of  their 
owners.  This  practice  goes  by  the  name  of  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery.  It  was  borrowed  from  the  Spanish 
colonies. 

The  third  institution  of  privilege,  which  in  the  eigh- 
teenth century  was  in  an  embryonic  state,  was  em- 
bodied in  the  custom  of  vesting  the  ownership  of 
things  used  by  the  community  and  essential  to  its 
welfare  in  individuals,  or  small  aggregates  thereof. 
This  institution  bore  a  resemblance  both  to  monarchy 
and  to  slavery.  To  monarchy  because  the  owners  of 
these  publicly  important  instrumentalities  could,  by 
virtue  of  their  control  of  prices,  tax  the  community 
for  the  use  of  things  essential  to  the  community's  wel- 
fare without  its  consent.  To  slavery  because  these  in- 
strumentalities were  operated,  not  by  their  owners,  but  by 
hired  employes  whose  labor  was  at  the  disposal  of  the 
owners,  not  because  of  ownership  of  their  persons,  but 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM      9 

because  of  ownership  of  the  instruments  of  production 
through  which  the  product  of  the  workers*  labor  be- 
came the  property  of  the  owner.  The  institution 
thus  resembling  both  the  maturer  institutions  of  privi- 
lege is  called  capitalism,  and  has  to-day  so  developed 
that  as  an  oppressor  of  the  people  its  power  is  probably 
not  less  than  that  of  its  predecessors. 

The  Abolition  of  Monarchy  and  Slavery.  Everyone 
knows  what  the  American  people  did  with  the  first  two 
institutions  of  privilege.  They  abolished  them.  The 
Revolutionary  War  ended  monarchy  and  the  Civil 
War  ended  slavery. 

In  place  of  monarchy  our  fathers  erected  in  this 
country  a  democracy  which  sought,  and  with  consider- 
able success,  to  place  the  control  of  government  in  the 
hands  of  the  governed,  to  take  the  public  business  out 
of  the  hands  of  irresponsible  private  parties — kings 
and  lords — and  vest  it  in  the  hands  of  public  officials, 
-elected  by,  or  otherwise  responsible  to,  the  people. 

Of  course  the  machinery  of  democracy  which  they 
devised  and  put  into  operation  was  crude  and  imper- 
fect. To  a  properly  constructed  instrument  of  de- 
mocracy it  bore  about  the  same  relation  that  Franklin's 
printing  press  bears  to  a  modern  Hoe  newspaper  press. 
Unfortunately  while  our  people  have  applied  the 
scientific  method  to  mechanical  affairs  they  have  failed 
to  apply  it  to  political  affairs,  with  the  result  that  our 
machinery  of  democracy  has  advanced  little  beyond 
the  crude  devices  of  the  eighteenth  century;  but  there 
are  reasons  for  hoping  that  the  time  will  come  when 
they  will  wake  up  politically  as  they  have  already 
waked  up  mechanically,  and  will  no  more  think  of 
invoking  Hamilton's  constitution  as  a  model  instru- 
ment of  democracy  than  they  think  of  invoking 
Franklin's  press  as  a  model  printing  press.     For  such 


10      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  1 

an  awakening  we  all  should  labor,  nor  grow  dis- 
couraged at  the  moderate  benefits  thus  far  attributable 
to  democracy.  It  is  always  possible  to  give  a  good 
principle  a  bad  reputation  by  carrying  it  out  in  a  de- 
fective manner,  and  the  defects  of  democracy  are  not 
defects  of  principle  but  of  machinery.  Even  with  its 
present  archaic  methods  our  democracy  will  compare 
very  favorably  with  the  average  monarchy.  If  you 
don't  think  so,  go  and  live  in  Austria  or  Turkey 
awhile.     They  are  about  an  average. 

As  to  slavery  the  American  people  had  nothing 
better  to  substitute  for  it  than  the  competitive  wage 
system  then,  and  now,  prevailing  in  the  north.  It 
was,  and  is,  a  much  better  system  than  slavery,  but  its 
advantages  are  personal  rather  than  economic.  Men 
and  women  can  no  longer  be  whipped  like  horses  nor 
bought  and  sold  like  sheep,  and  this  is  a  great  advance ; 
but,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Revolutionary  statesmen, 
those  who  engineered  emancipation  had  only  an  im- 
perfect substitute  to  offer.  Economically  the  average 
Southern  black  is  little  better  off  than  he  was  before 
the  war  because  he  has  merely  escaped  from  the 
oppression  of  slavery  into  that  of  capitalism. 

But  again,  let  us  not  be  discouraged  at  the  rather 
disappointing  results  of  emancipation.  The  American 
people  have  not  reached  the  goal,  but  they  are  moving 
in  the  right  direction.  They  are  groping,  but  they 
are  groping  toward  and  not  away  from  the  light. 
They  have  only  to  be  consistent,  to  follow  up  their 
own  best  traditions,  in  order  to  complete  the  work 
which  their  abolition  of  monarchy  and  slavery  has 
begun. 

Of  course  in  speaking"  of  American  traditions  and 
ideals  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  Americans  have 
always  thought  the  same  about  everything,  much  less 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    11 

!  — . 

about  the  three  institutions  of  privilege  which,  follow- 
ing rather  blindly  the  traditions  of  their  ancestors  or 
neighbors,  they  had  drifted  into.  There  was  a  time 
when  Americans  thought  well  of  the  institution  of 
monarchy,  but  they  changed  their  minds  about  it. 
There  was  a  time  when  they  thought  well  of  the 
institution  of  slavery,  but  they  changed  their  minds 
about  that  too.  And  in  both  cases  they  are  well  satis- 
fied that  their  revised  estimate  of  these  institutions 
is  the  correct  one.  It  is  to  these  revised  and  con- 
firmed traditions,  not  to  the  outgrown  and  repudiated 
ones,  that  I  refer  when  I  speak  of  Americanism,  and 
I  think  you  will  agree  that  this  is  the  only  proper  use 
of  such  a  term.  To-day  it  is  true  most  Americans 
seem  to  think  pretty  well  of  the  institution  of  capital- 
ism, but  there  are  signs  that  they  are  changing  their 
minds  about  it,  and  when  they  have  suffered  and  pon- 
dered its  evils  a  little  longer  they  are  likely  to  think 
the  same  about  it  as  they  do  about  its  kindred  institu- 
tions monarchy  and  slavery. 

Lincoln's  Method  of  Handling  Issues.  Now  it  is 
important  to  prove  to  the  American  people,  if  possible, 
this  proposition  that  socialism  is  consistent  and  capi- 
talism is  inconsistent  with  Americanism  as  embodied 
in  traditional  American  ideals,  and  the  only  way  I 
know  by  which  to  prove  a  proposition  is  to  reason  it 
out — to  apply  lo^ic  to  it.  At  least,  I  take  it  this  is  an 
old-fashioned  American  way,  and  in  order  to  support 
this  contention  I  wish  to  point  out  the  way.  in  which 
the  ablest  of  our  old-fashioned  American  statesmen 
handled  the  issues  paramount  in  his  time.  In  his 
debate  with  Douglas  at  Galesburg,  Illinois,  Abraham 
Lincoln  in  answering  one  of  his  opponent's  arguments 
used  the  following  language : 


12      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

1 

"Nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State  can  destroy 
a  right  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States. 

"The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly 
affirmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

"Therefore,  nothing  in  the  constitution  or  laws  of  any  State 
can  destroy  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave." 

Lincoln  then  proceeded  to  point  out  that  the  fault  in 
this  argument  was  not  in  the  reasoning  but  in  the 
premises,  but  I  am  not  concerned  with  this  particular 
argument.  I  cite  it  merely  to  show  Lincoln's  method 
of  getting  at  the  truth.  He  appeals  to  reason,  to 
logic;  he  even  throws  his  reasonings  into  strict  syllo- 
gistic form,  as  in  this  instance.  Throughout  Lincoln's 
addresses  and  messages  we  find  this  constant  use  of 
reason  as  a  test  of  truth,  and  until  it  can  be  shown  to 
the  contrary,  I  shall  assume  it  to  be  the  best  of  all 
traditional  American  ways  of  getting  at  the  truth. 

I  would  not  be  at  such  pains  to  insist  on  this  point 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  we  live  in  an  age  which 
holds  reason  in  some  disrepute.  There  are  many  per- 
sons about  who  contend  that  we  must  not  try  to  be 
too  consistent,  that  there  are  limits  beyond  which 
reason  should  not  be  used,  that  we  must  not  carry 
logic  too  far,  the  implication  being  that  unreason  is 
sometimes  better  than  reason,  that  illogic  is  better 
than  logic,  that  belief  is  a  good  substitute  for  evidence 
as  a  guide  to  human  affairs. 

Socialism  and  American  Democracy.  Abandoning 
this  un-Lincoln-like  method,  let  us  examine  the  issue 
of  socialism  vs.  capitalism  in  the  light  of  American 
doctrines  as  expressed  by  Lincoln,  using  Lincoln's 
syllogistic  methods  and  taking  him  for  our  guide.  We 
might  if  we  pleased  use  various  other  American  leaders 
as  our  authority  on  what  true  Americanism  is,  but 


!AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    13 

time  does  not  permit,  and  Lincoln  epitomizes  without 
misrepresenting  the  other  prophets  of  Americanism. 

And  first  let  us  apply  the  test  of  democracy,  begin- 
ning by  asking  what  Lincoln's  conception  of  de- 
mocracy was.  In  Chicago  in  1858  under  the  name  of 
"self-government"  he  referred  to  it  as  follows : 

"I  believe  each  individual  is  naturally  entitled  to  do  as  he 
pleases  with  himself  and  the  fruit  of  his  labor,  so  far  as  it  in 
no  wise  interferes  with  any  other  man's  rights;  that  each  com- 
munity, as  a  State,  has  a  rignt  to  do  exactly  as  it  pleases  with 
all  the  concerns  within  that  State  that  interfere  with  the  right 
of  no  other  State ;  and  that  the  General  Government,  upon  prin- 
ciple, has  no  right  to  interfere  with  anything  other  than  that 
general  class  of  things  that  does  concern  the  whole." 

At  Cincinnati  in  1859  under  the  name  of  "popular 
sovereignty,"  he  gave  this  definition  of  it: 

"I  think  a  definition  of  popular  sovereignty  in  the  abstract, 
would  be  about  this — that  each  man  shall  do  precisely  as  he 
pleases  with  himself,  and  with  all  those  things  which  exclusively 
concern  him.  Applied  in  government,  this  principle  would  be 
that  a  general  government  shall  do  all  those  things  which  per- 
tain to  it,  and  all  the  local  governments  shall  do  precisely  as 
they  please  in  respect  to  those  matters  which  exclusively  coiicern 
them." 

And  in  his  message  to  Congress  of  July  4,  1861,  he 
handled  the  matter  in  this  way : 

"This  relative  matter  of  National  power  and  State  rights,  as 
a  principle,  is  no  other  than  the  principle  of  generality  and  local- 
ity. Whatever  concerns  the  whole  should  be  confided  to  the 
whole — to  the  General  Government;  while  whatever  concerns 
only  the  State  should  be  left  exclusively  to  the  State.  This  is 
all  there  is  of  original  principle  about  it" 

In  brief,  then,  Lincoln's  position  is  this :  Democracy 
means  the  rule  of  the  people.  The  rule  of  the  people 
over  what?  Over  what  concerns  or  pertains  to  them, 
of  course;  over  their  own  affairs,  their  own  business. 


14      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Whatever  concerns  any  given  group  of  the  people 
should  be  ruled  by  that  group;  proportionally  if  the 
concern  is  shared  by  other  groups,  exclusively  if  it  is 
not.  This  is  the  traditional  American  meaning  of 
democracy.  "This  is  all  there  is  of  original  principle 
about  it."  And  this  gives  us  at  once  the  minor  premise 
of  our  syllogism,  v^hich  may  be  condensed  to  the  fol- 
lowing proposition : 

The  people  should  rule  over  what  concerns  them. 

Now  just  to  get  in  practice,  let  us  apply  this  prin- 
ciple to  the  issue  of  the  American  Revolution,  the  issue 
of  political  democracy  vs.  autocracy. 

Are  the  powers  exercised  by  the  king  and  parliament 
any  concern  of  the  people  of  America?  Is  the  power 
to  tax,  to  regulate  commerce,  to  appoint  the  governors 
and  judges  in  the  colonies  and  exercise  other  political 
powers,  any  affair  of  the  people  of  the  colonies?  The 
answer  is  obviously  yes,  and  this  gives  us  the  ma'jor 
premise  of  the  reasoning  upon  which  our  revolutionary 
forefathers  acted,  the  complete  syllogism  being  as 
follows : 

The  people  should  rule  over  what  concerns  them. 

The  conduct  of  the  political  affairs  of  America  con- 
cerns the  American  people. 

Therefore  the  American  people  should  rule  over  the 
conduct  of  the  political  affairs  of  America. 

Now  in  the  same  way  let  us  again  use  Lincoln's 
method  in  applying  the  test  of  American  democracy  to 
the  more  modern  issue  of  socialism  vs.  capitalism. 

Is  the  manner  in  which  the  great  industries  of  this 
country,  the  railroads,  coal  mines,  packing  plants, 
textile  and  steel  mills,  etc.,  are  operated  any  concern  of 
the  people  of  this  country?  Are  the  interests  of  the 
people  in  any  material  manner  affected  by  the  mode  in 
which  the  products  of  their  socialized  industries  are 
produced    and    exchanged?    Are    the    operations    by 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    15 

which  the  people  are  supplied  with  the  material  con- 
ditions of  their  existence,  their  food,  fuel,  clothing, 
transportation,  etc.,  any  of  their  business?  Again  the 
answer  is  obviously  yes,  and  this  gives  us  the  major 
premise  of  the  reasoning  upon  which  sane  socialists 
ask  the  American  people  to  act,  the  complete  syllogism 
being  as  follows : 

The  people  should  rule  over  what  concerns  them. 

The  conduct  of  the  industrial  affairs  of  America 
concerns  the  American  people. 

Therefore  the  American  people  should  rule  over  the 
conduct  of  the  industrial  affairs  of  America. 

Comparing  this  argument  with  the  corresponding 
one  for  political  democracy  it  is  clear  that  socialism 
is  not  an  inference  from  the  American  political  system, 
but  that  both  are  inferences  from  a  common  premise — 
the.  premise  of  democracy.  The  people  should  rule 
over  their  industrial  affairs  for  the  same  reason,  and 
in  the  same  sense,  that  they  should  rule  over  their 
political  affairs. 

Now  there  is  just  one  way  in  which  the  argument 
for  industrial  democracy  is  met  in  this  country.  It 
is  by  the  denial  of  the  premise  of  democracy — the 
minor  premise.  The  major  premise  is  too  obviously 
true  to  deny.  But  this  denial  is  in  the  form  of  two 
separate  contentions.  First,  the  contention  for  abso- 
lute industrial  oligarchy;  second,  the  contention  for 
limited  industrial  oligarchy. 

Unlimited  Industrial  Oligarchy.  Those  who  hold 
the  first  position  contend  that  while  the  American 
people  know  enough  to  attend  to  their  own  political 
affairs  they  do  not  know  enough  to  attend  to  their  own 
industrial  affairs,  and  that  private  individuals  perform 
public  industrial  functions  as  incidents  of  money-seek- 
ing in  a  manner  more  in  the  public  interest  than  public 


16     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 


officials  working  only  in  the  service  of  the  public  are 
able  to  do.  They  claim  the  premise  of  democracy 
should  not  be  what  Lincoln  said  it  was,  that  the  people 
should  rule  over  what  concerns  them.  They  claim  it 
should  read  this  way : 

The  people  should  rule  over  some  of  the  things  that 
concern  them,  and  let  private  individuals,  not  respon- 
sible to  them,  rule  over  others. 

Here  and  now  I  will  not  attempt  to  reply  to  this 
contention,  except  to  say  that  if  those  who  thus  con- 
tend can  prove  just  enough  without  proving  too  much, 
if  they  can  apologize  for  capitalism  without  at  the 
same  time  apologizing  for  monarchy,  if,  in  short, 
they  can  discredit  industrial,  without  at  the  same  time 
discrediting  political,  democracy,  they  will  do  what 
has  not  heretofore  been  done  to  my  knowledge.  The 
weakness  of  their  contention  will  appear  more  clearly 
later.  Just  now  I  desire  to  consider  a  little  the  pro- 
posals of  a  class  in  the  community  who  hold  the 
second  position. 

Limited  Industrial  Oligarchy.  I  refer  to  those  per- 
sons who  believe  in  ruling  the  public  industries  of  the 
country  by  public  regulation  or  control  through  com- 
missions or  courts,  instead  of  through  ownership  as 
socialists  propose.  Their  instruments  of  control  are 
such  bodies  as  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission, 
the  Federal  Trade  Commission,  and  the  United  States 
Supreme  Court.  The  fact  that  they  believe  in  public 
control  indicates  that  they  admit  the  conduct  of  these 
industries  is  somehow  the  concern  of  the  public,  and 
they  propose  a  means  by  which  the  public  shall  rule  what 
concerns  it.  They  give  signs  of  believing  in  the  control 
of  the  people  over  their  own  business,  but  they  do. not 
believe  in  the  way  of  controlling  it  proposed  by  socialists. 


AMERICAlSriSM  AND  SOCIALISM    17 

f  !^^ 

They  have  a  different  way.  They  will  let  the  public 
commissions  do  it. 

So,  our  trad-e,  commerce,  and  other  controlling  com- 
missions rule  the  public  industries  of  the  country,  do 
they?  Well,  then,  what  are  the  boards  of  directors  of 
the  various  big  companies  doing?  Are  they  doing 
nothing?  Oh,  no,  they  are  doing  some  of  the  control- 
ling too.  They  are  sharing  the  control  with  the  com- 
missions. But  this  obviously  is  not  industrial  democracy 
although  it  squints  in  that  direction.  It  is  a  policy  of 
limited  industrial  oligarchy.  It  is  a  policy  of  "butting 
in"  on  plutocracy.  It  is  a  compromise  policy  having 
only  a  faint  resemblance  to  the  old-fashioned  American 
method  of  dealing  with  undemocratic  institutions. 
Those  who  propose  it  do  not  agree  with  the  founders  of 
this  republic  that  the  people  should  attend  to  their  own 
concerns  without  interference  from  private  parties  how- 
ever paternal.  They  believe  in  such  interference.  They 
suggest  indeed  that  the  people  shall  also  interfere  a  little 
in  their  own  concerns,  but  shall  leave  most  of  the  man- 
agement and  all  of  the  profit  to  the  littk  fathers  of 
industry.  They  are  opposed  to  a  limited  political  pater- 
nalism but  they  favor  a  limited  industrial  paternalism. 

Just  apply  this  principle  to  Ihe  argument  for  political 
democracy.  Suppose  our  forefathers  instead  of  abolish- 
ing the  rule  of  George  III  and  establishing  their  own 
had  simply  tried  to  go  shares  with  him.  Suppose  they 
had  said  that  the  conduct  of  th-e  political  affairs  of 
America  is  a  quasi-public  function,  just  as  our  states- 
men say  to-day  that  the  conduct  of  the  industrial  affairs 
of  America  is  a  quasi-public  function.  Suppose  they 
had  proposed  the  same  scheme  that  our  regulators  pro- 
pose to-day,  namely,  let  us  do  some  of  the  ruling  and 
let  George  do  some  of  it.  Obviously  they  would  have 
been  at  least  quasi-tories.  Such  a  proposal  would  cer- 
tainly not  have  been  consistent  with  the  democracy  of 


18     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Jefferson,  Franklin  and  Washington.  At  any  rate  our 
forefathers  of  the  Revolution  did  not  pursue  such  a 
policy.  They  left  that  to  European  countries  which 
have  been  applying  the  policy  of  public  regulation  to 
their  political  affairs  for  some  time.  Some  of  them 
have  been  centuries  at  it.  England  began  it  way  back 
in  the  thirteenth  century  with  the  Magna  Charta  and 
has  been  butting  in  more  and  more  to  the  control  of  her 
autocrats  until  she  has  butted  her  king  into  the  impotence 
of  a  figurehead.  Other  European  monarchies  have  pur- 
sued the  policy  to  a  less  degree.  This  compromise  with 
autocracy,  this  sharing  the  rule  with  the  oligarch,  is  a 
European  policy.  It  is  thoroughly  un-American,  but 
has  been  recently  imported  by  our  quasi-progressives 
who  seem  to  consider  it  better  than  the  true  American 
article.  But  there  are  signs  that  many  of  them  are 
beginning  to  revise  their  opinion.  The  policy  of  limited 
industrial  oligarchy  is  strictly  comparable  with  the  well- 
worn  European  policy  of  limited  political  oligarchy  and 
neither  is  consistent  with  itself.  To-day,  as  in  1776, 
there  are  only  two  clear-cut  and  consistent  attitudes 
toward  public  affairs,  namely,  the  straight  American 
attitude — Let  the  people  attend  to  their  own  business. 
And  the  Tory  attitude—^Let  George  do  it." 

American  Experience  in  Regulating  an  Institution 
of  Privilege.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  regulators 
can  find  one  American  precedent  for  their  policy,  though 
they  are  at  no  great  pains  to  call  public  attention  to  it; 
perhaps  because  it  has  been  so  emphatically  repudiated. 
This  is  not  the  first  time  our  government  has  tried  to 
regulate  an  institution  of  privilege.  The  "great  com- 
promisers" of  the  ante-bellum  period,  Qay,  Webster, 
Douglas  and  their  ilk,  sought  to  deal  with  the  institution 
of  slavery  as  our  advocates  of  regulation  seek  to  deal 
with  that  of  capitalism.    They  tried  to  settle  it  by  a 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    19 

series  of  compromises.  Lincoln's  description  of  the 
process  reminds  us  of  some  more  modern  ineffectualities. 
In  a  speech  at  New  Haven,  Conn.,  in  i860  he  said, 
speaking  of  the  slavery  issue: 

"There  have  been  many  efforts  to  settle  it.  Again  and  again 
it  has  been  fondly  hoped  that  it  was  settled,  but  every  time  it 
breaks  out  afresh  and  more  violently  than  ever.  It  was  settled, 
our  fathers  hoped,  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  but  it  did  not 
stay  settled.  Then  the  compromises  of  1850  were  declared  to  be 
a  full  and  final  settlement  of  the  question.  The  two  great  parties, 
each  in  national  convention,  adopted  resolutions  declaring  that 
the  settlement  made  by  the  compromise  of  1850  was  a  finality — 
that  it  would  last  forever.  Yet  how  long  before  it  was  unsettled 
again?  It  broke  out  again  in  1854,  and  blazed  higher  and  raged 
more  furiously  than  ever  before,  and  the  agitation  has  not  rested 


The  Statesmen  of  our  day  are  trying  to  settk  the  trust 
and  labor  problems — the  problem  of  capitalism — by  the 
methods  vi^hich  the  ante-bellum  statesmen  used  in  trying 
to  settle  slavery.  Th^y  are  trying  to  compromise  with 
it.^  The  issue  has  changed  but  the  mental  processes  of 
legislators  remain  the  same.  Our  Sherman  Act,  Elkins 
Act,  the  various  Interstate  Commerc-e  Acts,  the  Federal 
Trade  Commission  Act,  etc.,  are  strictly  comparable  with 
the  Missouri  Compromise  of  1820,  the  Compromise  Acts 
of  1850,  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
etc.  They  are  attempts  to  patch  up  an  outworn  and 
evil  institution  instead  of  abolishing  it.  And  the  results 
are  the  same.  The  more  it  is  patched  the  more  it  needs 
patching.  We  are  now  engaged  in  patching  the  patches. 
Our  state  and  national  governments  pik  up  elaborate 
laws  in  an  orgy  of  over-legislation  to  settle  the  trouble 
and  it  is  as  far  from  settlement  as  ever.  Precisely  in 
the  manner  described  by  Lincoln,  it  is  ever  breaking  out 
anew.  The  statesmen  of  the  earlier  nineteenth  century 
spent  forty  years  fooling  with  the  slavery  problem  and 
th'Cn  muddled  into  a  war  which  incidentally  settled  the 


20     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

3 

problem  in  the  only  way  it  is  possible  to  settle  the  prob- 
lem of  an  evil  institution — by  abolishing  it. 

Our  statesmen  are  following  the  same  old  road.  We 
are  evidently  in  for  forty  years  of  fooling  with  the 
problem  of  capitalism.  We  have  already  had  about 
thirty,  but  despite  all  our  prosecutions  and  dissolutions, 
our  investigating,  regulating,  and  capital-baiting,  prices 
go  higher,  the  labor  war  grows  fiercer,  and  the  trusts  wax 
fatter.  Let  us  hope  another  ten  years  will  exhaust  the 
people's  patience.  We  shall  be  fortunate  then  if  some 
of  our  practical  men  do  not  muddle  us  into  another  war, 
which  seems  to  be  the  so-called  practical  man's  way  of 
solving  problems,  both  here  and  abroad.  You  remem- 
ber that  Lincoln  and  other  "visionaries"  of  his  time  sug- 
gested that  the  slavery  problem  be  settled  by  the  pur- 
chase of  the  slaves  by  the  nation,  but  the  ''practical"  men 
of  the  day  said  the  scheme  was  impractical,  it  would 
cost  too  much.  So  they  adopted  a  practical  method — 
the  Civil  War — three  months  of  which,  as  Lincoln 
pointed  out,  cost  the  nation  as  much  as  would  the  pur- 
chase of  every  slave  in  the  country.  We  have  just  such 
practical  men  about  to-day,  and  they  wield  great  influ- 
ence, too.  They  are  honest  and  sincere  men,  but  no 
more  honest  and  sincere  than  those  who  got  us  into  the 
Civil  War. 

Now  what  is  the  explanation  of  all  this  failure  of  our 
anti-trust  and  regulatory  laws?  Why  does  so  much 
legislative  effort  accomplish  so  little?  Again  we  have 
only  to  go  back  to  Lincoln  to  find  the  answer.  His 
diagnosis  of  the  futiUties  of  his  day  is  entirely  applicable 
to  those  of  our  own.    Thus  he  says : 

"These  repeated  settlements  must  have  some  fault  about  them. 
There  must  be  some  inadequacy  in  their  very  nature  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  they  were  designed.  We  can  only  speculate,  as 
to  where  that  fault — that  inadequacy  is,  but  we  may  perhaps 
profit  by  past  experience. 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    21 

"I  think  that  one  of  the  causes  of  these  repeated  failures  is 
that  our  best  and  greatest  men  have  greatly  underestimated  the 
size  of  this  question.  They  have  constantly  brought  forward 
small  cures  for  great  sores — plasters  too  small  to  cover  the 
wound.  That  is  one  reason  that  all  settlements  have  proved  so 
temporary,  so  evanescent." 

That  explanation  fits  our  present  situation  pretty  well. 
Little  need  be  add^d  to  it.  It  is  a  case  of  "plasters  too 
small  to  cover  the  wound"  again.  Think  of  a  Sherman 
act  and  a  pure  food  act,  and  all  the  other  little  plasters 
and  patches  as  cures  for  the  great  cancer  of  capitalism. 
And  yet  our  best  and  greatest  men  so  underestimate  the 
size  of  this  question  that  they  have  faith  in  such  cures. 
Oh,  if  the  nation  would  but  take  Lincoln's  advice  and 
profit  from  past  experience,  so  that  at  least  the  more 
obvious  futilities  of  history  would  not  be  calkd  upon  to 
repeat  themselves! 

Capitalism  and  American  Slavery.  But  we  must 
pass  on  to  the  obverse  side  of  capitalism.  We  have  dis- 
cussed in  the  light  of  Lincoln's  reasoning  the  relation  of 
capitalism  to  monarchy.  Let  us  use  the  same  source  of 
illumination  to  reveal  its  relation  to  slavery. 

In  showing  that  capitalism  rests  on  the  same  basis  and 
derives  its  sanction  from  the  same  premises  as  monarchy 
we  followed  Lincoln's  method  and  reasoned  the  matter 
out,  not  scorning  a  formal  syllogism  now  and  then. 
Let  us  continue  to  follow  that  method. 

In  Lincoln's  last  reply  to  Douglas  at  Alton,  Illinois, 
October  15th,  1858,  he  gives  his  views  about  the  real 
essence  of  slavery.  He  classes  it  with  monarchy  as  an 
institution  of  privilege,  and  points  out  the  trait  of  human 
nature  upon  which  both  institutions  rest.  Here  is  how 
he  sums  it  up: 

"That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will  continue  in 
this  country  when  these  poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and 


22      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal  struggle  between  these 
two  principles — right  and  wrong — throughout  the  world.  They 
are  the  two  principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from  the 
beginning  of  time;  and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The  one 
is  the  common  right  of  humanity,  and  the  other  the  divine  right 
of  kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in  whatever  shape  it  develops 
itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit  that  says,  'You  toil  and  work  and 
earn  bread,  and  I'll  eat  it.'  No  matter  in  what  shape  it  comes, 
whether  from  the  mouth  of  a  king  who  seeks  to  bestride  the 
people  of  his  own  nation  and  live  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or 
from  one  race  of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslaving  another  race, 
it  is  the  same  tyrannical  principle." 

"You  toil  and  work  and  earn  bread  and  I'll  eat  it." 
Lincoln  tells  us  this  is  the  real  essence  of  slavery,  and 
he  also  tells  us  that  the  issue  raised  by  the  practice  of 
this  principle  will  continue  in  this  country  after  he  is 
dead.  He  is,  as  usual,  right  in  both  contentions. 
Slavery  has  been  abolished,  and  death  has  silenced  the 
voice  of  Lincoln,  but  the  practice  of  one  man's  taking 
what  another  man  earns  continues,  just  as  he  said  it 
would.  But  it  is  going  to  be  abolished  as  other  methods 
of  doing  the  same  thing  have  been  abolished,  and  when 
it  is  the  last  great  institution  of  privilege  in  this  country 
will  have  gone  the  way  of  the  first  two. 

Let  us  see  if  we  can  form  a  syllogism  which  will  show 
the  relation  of  capitalism  to  this  great  issue.  Suppose 
we  try  this  one : 

People  who  own  things  for  a  living  do  not  need  to 
toil  and  work  to  produce  the  bread  they  eat. 

But  somebody  must  toil  and  work  to  produce  the 
bread  they  eat. 

Therefore  people  who  own  things  for  a  living  eat  the 
bread  that  somebody  else  has  toiled  and  worked  to 
produce. 

Now  note  that  if  we  substitute  the  word  "slaves"  for 
the  word  "things"  in  this  syllogism  we  have  the  exact 
argument  that  Lincoln  used,  and  which  determined  his 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    23 

!  — I 

Stand  on  the  slavery  issue.  In  other  words,  slavery  is 
but  a  special  case  of  capitalism  because  slaves  are  special 
cases  of  things  in  general.  Special  cases  are  always 
comprehended  more  easily  than  general  ones  because 
they  are  more  simple  and  concrete.  Thus  any  one  now 
can  see  that  the  system  of  owning  slaves  for  a  living 
permits  one  man  to  live  on  the  labor  of  another.  Quite 
a  few  people  see  a  little  further.  The  single  taxer,  for 
instance,  sees  another  special  case.  He  sees  that  the 
system  of  owning  land  for  a  living  permits  one  man  to 
live  upon  the  labor  of  another.  The  socialist  sees  the 
general  case.  He  sees  that  the  system  of  owning  any- 
thing for  a  living  permits  one  man  to  live  upon  the  labor 
of  another.  He  sees  that  the  issue  is  not  in  the  particular 
kind  of  thing  owned,  but  in  the  system  of  payment  for 
ownership;  the  system  of  owning  something,  instead  of 
doing  something,  for  a  living,  For  the  wealth  consumed 
by  the  owning  class  must  come  from  somewhere.  Pro- 
duction is  necessary  to  consumption.  And  therefore  it 
is 'impossible  to  have  a  class  which  is  paid  in  proportion 
to  what  it  owns,  without  at  the  same  time  having  a  class 
which  is  not  paid  in  proportion  to  what  it  does.  In 
order  that  he  who  owns  something  for  a  living  may  re- 
ceive, it  is  necessary  that  he  who  does  something  for  a 
living  shall  give.  It  is  well  for  the  owners  of  our  planet 
that  they  have  been  successful  in  teaching  the  workers 
that  it  is  more  blessed  to  give  than  to  receive.  They  are 
willing  the  toiler  shall  be  blessed  to  the  limit  of  this 
cheering  beatitude.  Perhaps  they  think  atonement  for 
the  loss  suffered  in  this  exchange  may  be  secured  by  the 
practice  of  due  meekness  in  receiving,  recalling  that  other 
beatitude — "Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit 
the  earth.'* 

Of  course  it  is  easy  to  reproach  the  capitalist  for  his 
willingness  to  eat  the  fruit  of  others*  toil,  yet  after  all, 
how  many  are  there  who  are  not  willing  to  do  it  ?    Very 


24      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

few  indeed,  if  the  process  is  only  concealed  a  little,  and 
the  system  of  capitalism  is  well  adapted  to  conceal  it. 
The  capitalist,  like  the  slave  holder,  seems  to  be  con- 
ferring, not  receiving,  the  benefit.  Both  live  by  per- 
mitting others  to  work  with  their  property.  They  do  the 
permitting  and  the  others  do  the  working.  Here  seems 
a  fair  exchange  if  you  do  not  think  too  much  about  it. 
It  is  true  that  Lincoln  referring  to  this  prayerful  prac- 
tice on  the  part  of  the  slave-holders  impli-ed  a  reproach 
when  in  his  second  inaugural  he  said: — *Tt  may  seem 
strange  that  any  men  should  dare  to  ask  a  just  God's 
assistance  in  wringing  their  bread  from  the  sweat  of 
other  men's  faces,"  but  he  also  added,  "let  us  judge  not 
that  we  be  not  judged."  To  say  capitalists  are  bad 
men  because  capitalism  is  a  bad  institution  is  as  senseless 
as  to  say  slave  holders  are  bad  men  because  slavery  is  a 
bad  institution,  or  kings  are  bad  men  because  monarchy 
is  a  bad  institution.  On  the  average,  kings,  slave 
holders,  capitalists,  subjects,  slaves  and  working  men  are 
the  same  average  mixture  of  good  and  bad.  Don't  let  the 
"good  man — bad  man"  issue  sidetrack  you.  Keep  your 
eye  on  the  "good  institution — bad  institution"  issue.  It  is 
thinking  on  that  issue  which  has  always  been  fruitful  in 
this  country.  The  desire  to  let  the  other  fellow  do  the 
sweating  is  a  human,  not  a  capitalistic,  trait,  and  if  it 
requires  an  apology  it  is  human  nature  that  must  apolo- 
gize. But  while  it  is  an  almost  universal  human  desire, 
yet  institutions  which  sanction  it  are,  not  in  the  interest 
of  humanity.  Mankind  cannot  afford  to  let  its  weak- 
nesses determine  its  institutions. 

The  relation  of  slavery  to  capitalism,  however,  can  be 
perceived  more  concretely  if  we  consider  for  a  moment 
the  modern  method  of  producing  things.  The  produc- 
tion of  almost  everything  to-day  depends  upon  the.  use 
of  things  previously  produced:  tools,  machines,  appara- 
tus,  or   other   artificial   means,   constituting    forms   of 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    25 

wealth  used  in  the  production  of  more  wealth.  These 
forms  of  wealth  are  known  as  capital. 

The  primitive  counterpart  of  capital  was  the  hunian 
hand  and  body  which  produced  wealth  by  direct  manipu- 
lation of  the  land  and  the  raw  material  thereof,  and  under 
primitive  conditions  if  you  wanted  to  avail  yourself  of 
another  man*s  labor  by  means  of  a  property  relation,  it 
was  necessary  to  own  either  the  land,  or  the  hand  and 
body  of  the  worker.  Thus  in  old  times  feudalism 
despoiled  the  worker  through  its  system  of  land  owner- 
ship, as  slavery  despoiled  him  through  its  system  of 
hand  ownership.  But  to-day  men  work,  and  in  order  to 
compete  in  the  market  must  work,  with  appliances  which 
are,  in  essence,  extensions  of  their  hands,  and  hence  to- 
day there  is  no  need  to  own  the  actual  human  hand  in 
order  to  avail  ourselves  of  human  labor.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  own  the  modern  extension  of  the  hand  in 
the  form  of  capital,  and  the  same  result  is  achieved. 
Jyst  as  it  would  be  unnecessary,  if  we  owned  the  hands 
of  the  slave,  to  own  the  body  which  operated  them;  so 
it  is  unnecessary,  if  we  own  the  tools  which  his  hands 
operate,  to  own  either  the  hands  or  the  body  of  the 
worker  which  operates  them.  Moreover,  inanimate  capi- 
tal is  less  irksome  to  own  than  animate.  For  if  we  own 
the  man  we  have  to  look  after  him  as  carefully  as  if  he 
were  a  horse,  whereas  if  all  we  own  is  the  instrument 
with  which  he  works  all  we  need  look  after  is  the  instru- 
ment.    We  can  let  him  shift  for  himself. 

Capitalism  indeed  is  simply  a  method  for  doing  effi- 
ciently what  slavery  did  inefficiently.  It  is  the  new  sys- 
tem of  hand  ownership  as  slavery  was  the  old.  It  is  an 
improved  means  of  permitting  one  man  to  eat  the  bread 
that  another  has  toiled  and  worked  to  produce,  and  unless 
Lincoln  misrepresented  the  true  American  position  on 
this  issue,  jt  is  as  much  opposed  to  that  position  in  its 


26      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

aspect  as  an  exploiter  of  the  producer,  as  in  its  other 
aspect  as  an  oppressor  of  the  consumer. 

The  Goal  of  Americanism.  It  seems  not  unfair  to 
claim  that  in  the  foregoing  discussion  it  has  been  shown 
that  capitalism  combines  the  essential  qualities  of  mon- 
archy and  slavery — that  it  is  a  denial  of  the  right  of  the 
people  to  rule  their  own  concerns,  and  an  assertion  of  the 
right  of  one  man  to  consume  the  product  of  another 
man's  labor.  Both  the  denial  and  the  assertion  have 
been  repudiated  by  the  American  people — repudiated  at 
the  cost  of  two  long  and  bloody  wars.  They  are  abso- 
lutely un-American  in  the  sense  that  they  are  opposed  to 
the  best  traditions  of  the  republic.  They  are  only  toler- 
ated to-day  because  they  are  disguised  under  forms,  of 
which  our  people  are  indeed  deeply  distrustful,  but  the 
true  nature  of  which  is  still  obscure  to  them.  If  this  is 
the  case,  then  at  least  one  duty  of  enlightened  American- 
ism seems  clear.  It  is  to  try  to  show  to  the  American 
people,  first  the  true  relation  of  capitalism  to  monarchy 
and  slavery;  and  second  to  point  out  the  only  substitute 
for  it  consistent  with  American  ideals.  Namely,  for  the 
people  to  attend  to  their  own  industrial  affairs,  in  the 
same  sense  in  which  they  attend  to  their  own  political 
affairs,  thus  replacing  industrial  autocracy  with  indus- 
trial democracy.  And  to  conduct  them  for  public  serv- 
ice instead  of  for  private  profit,  thus  replacing  the 
practice  of  owning  something  with  that  of  doing  some- 
thing for  a  living;  to  the  end  that  public  functions  shall 
be  conducted  as  public  functions,  instead  of  as  by- 
processes  of  private  money  making,  and  that  no  able- 
bodied  adult  shall  eat  the  bread  that  another  has  toiled 
and  worked  to  produce. 

The  name  of  such  a  system  of  doing  things  ought  .to  be 
rather  a  matter  of  indifference,  but  unfortunately  it  is 
not,  because  men  have  the  habit  of  judging  things  by. 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    27 

'  — — 

what  they  are  called  instead  of  by  what  they  are.  The 
word  socialism,  partly  by  the  vagaries  of  persons  calling 
themselves  socialists,  partly  by  the  successful  sophistry 
of  our  Tories,  honest  and  dishonest,  has  been  invested 
with  so  much  obscurity  and  suspicion  that  it  constitutes 
a  real  handicap  to  the  soundest,  most  practical,  and  most 
typically  American  policy  which  can  be  applied  to  our 
present  industrial  problems.  The  word  socialism  does 
not  even  express  by  its  derivation  the  meaning  of  the 
doctrine.  Socialists  do  not  need  to  contend  for  the 
socialization  of  industry.  Every  one,  including  the 
monopolist,  contends  for  that.  What  they  contend  for 
is  the  democratization  of  industry;  in  other  words,  for 
consistent  democracy,  which  is  therefore  the  proper  term 
for  what  is  now  called  socialism. 

If  it  could  be  called  democracy  or  even  nationalism, 
Americanism,  collectivism,  or  anything  suggestive  of  its 
real  character,  and  expounded  in  the  common  sense 
American  fashion  of  Lincoln,  all  the  powers  of  plu- 
tocracy could  not  prevail  against  it,  and  some  day  this 
is  going  to  be  done. 

I  rather  think  the  progressive  elements  of  all  parties 
will  in  a  few  years  become  convinced  that  the  paltering 
policy  of  regulation  borrowed  from  European  nations  is 
futile — ^many  of  them  see  it  already — and  will  turn  to  the 
tried  and  trustworthy  American  method — the  method 
which  our  forefathers  finally  applied  in  dealing  with 
monarchy  and  slavery.  They  will  turn  from  the  policy 
of  Clay  the  Great  Compromiser  to  that  of  Lincoln  the 
Great  Emancipator.  They  will  profit  from  past  experi- 
ence as  Lincoln  did  and  advised  others  to  do.  How 
Lincoln  profited  is  a  matter  of  history.  When  in  June 
1858  he  received  the  nomination  for  senator  at  Spring- 
field he  made  one  of  the  most  famous  speeches  of  his 
career.  It  was  not  the  speech  of  a  ^'practical"  man  and 
it  lost  him  the  senatorship.    His  practical  friends  to 


28     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

1  1 

whom  he  showed  it  previous  to  delivery  called  it  a 
"damned  fool  speech"  and  advised  him  not  to  give  it. 
They  wanted  the  Republican  party  to  continue  the  policy 
of  compromise.  But  Lincoln  had  learned  the  futility  of 
trying  to  regulate  an  institution  of  privilege  and  resolved 
to  speak  out  plainly,  and  so  informed  his  timorous  ad- 
visers, saying:  "The  time  has  come  when  these  senti- 
ments should  be  uttered,  and  if  it  is  decreed  that  I 
should  go  down  because  of  this  speech,  then  let  me  go 
down,  linked  to  the  truth." 

Here  is  what  Lincoln  had  learned  from  experience : 

"If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we  are 
tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do,  and  how  to  do  it.  We 
are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated  with 
the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end  to 
slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that  policy,  that  agita- 
tion has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented.  In 
my  opinion,  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  "A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  I 
believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved — I  do 
not  expect  the  house  to  fall— but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be 
divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either 
the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction;  or  its  advocates  will  push 
it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States  old 
as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

Experience  is  bound  to  teach  the  progressive  thinking 
men  of  our  day  what  it  taught  Lincoln,  that  it  is  futile 
to  compromise  with  an  institution  of  privilege,  and  when 
it  has  taught  them  this  they  can  "better  judge  what  to  do 
and  how  to  do  it."  In  other  words,  to  know  "whither 
we  are  tending"  will  enable  them  to  convert  the  policy 
of  regulation  from  a  policy  of  blind  makeshift  to  one 
of  constructive  democracy.  They  will  inevitably  learn 
that  this  policy  is  not  permanent,  but  transitional,  lead- 
ing in  one  or  the  other  of  two  opposite  directions.    The 


AMERICANISM  AND  SOCIALISM    29 

money  power  like  the  slave  power,  regulation  or  no 
regulation,  will  not  stand  still.  It  will  cither  advance  or 
it  will  recede.  A  nation  cannot  endure  permanently  in 
a  condition  of  divided  interest — half  of  its  power  going 
to  the  doing,  and  half  to  the  owning  class.  It  will  go 
all  one  way  or  all  the  other.  Either  those  who  do  the 
work  of  the  nation  will  win  the  right  to  the  full  product 
of  their  labor,  or  the  plutocracy  which  already  rules  over 
so  much  of  the  nation's  life,  political  as  well  as  industrial, 
will  extend  that  rule  "till  all  of  liberty  shall  be  lost." 

Until  this  lesson  has  been  learned  by  enough  of  the 
people,  the  apostle  of  Americanism  must  be  satisfied  to 
carry  on  a  campaign  of  education  such  as  that  which 
Lincoln  carried  on  against  slavery;  proving  by 
Lincoln's  methods  that  a  nation  tolerating  capitalism,  like 
a  nation  tolerating  slavery,  is  a  house  divided  against  it- 
self; that  such  toleration  involves  an  irrepressible  con- 
flict between  the  man  who  toils  for  bread  and  the  man 
who  eats  it  for  him — a  conflict  of  which,  as  Lincoln  ex- 
pHcitly  maintained,  the  irrepressible  conflict  of  slavery 
was  but  a  special  phase ;  showing,  as  Lincoln  showed,  that 
the  house  need  not  therefore  fall,  but  that  if  it  would 
avoid  falling  it  must  cease  to  be  divided;  and  insisting, 
not  in  a  spirit  of  hatred  of  any  man  or  class  of  men,  but 
in  Lincoln's  spirit  of  "malice  toward  none  and  charity  to 
all,"  that  it  is  the  nation's  duty  and  interest  to  treat  the 
institution  of  capitalism  as  our  forefathers  treated  those 
other  institutions  of  privilege,  monarchy  and  slavery;  to 
place  it,  in  Lincoln's  phrase,  "in  the  course  of  ultimate 
extinction,"  and  to  do  it  as  promptly  as  it  is  practical 
to  do. 

When  that  extinction  has  been  accomplished  the  origi- 
nal American  ideal,  the  end  to  which  the  fathers  of  the 
republic  looked  forward,  will  have  been  realized.  We 
shall,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  have  a  consistent  de- 
mocracy— a  government,  economic  as  well  as  political, 


30     AMERICANIZED  SOCIAI.ISM 

Pi— — — — — ^— —  — H^— i— — — ^.M— < 

"of  the  people,  by  the  people  and  for  the  people";  and 
we  have  reason  as  well  as  faith  to  believe  that  such  a 
government,  in  profound  contrast  to  the  imperial  gov- 
ernments whose  instability  is  attested  by  all  the  ages,  will 
prove  to  be  one  that  *'shall  not  perish  from  the  earth/* 
Nor  need  we  confine  our  hope  to  America.  As  she  has 
taught  the  world  by  her  example  in  the  past,  so  may  she 
teach  it  in  the  future.  The  great  principles  of  de- 
mocracy and  liberty  rooted  in  American  traditions  are 
principles  of  humanity.  The  ultimate  stability,  not  alone 
of  nations,  but  of  society,  depends  upon  them.  As  they 
are  essential  to  the  emancipation  of  a  race  and  of  a 
nation,  so  also  are  they  essential  to  the  emancipation  of 
a  world. 


II 

THE  PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY 

The  Origin  of  Institutions.  Institutions  are  ways 
of  doing  things.  Human  ways  of  doing  things  are  de- 
termined by  the  immediate  need  of  having  things  done, 
and  immediate  needs  call  for  immediate  means  of  meet- 
ing them.  Given  any  human  need  recognized  by  society, 
the  nearest  and  most  obvious  method  of  dealing  with  it 
will  be  adopted  with  little  regard  to  the  more  remote 
results,  and  thus  it  comes  about  that  institutions  often 
come  to  be  ways  of  dealing  with  human  affairs  which 
achieve  the  more  immediate  and  superficial  ends  of  man- 
kind and  defeat  the  more  remote  and  far-reaching. 
*  Institutions  are  modified  in  the  same  way  in  which  they 
are  originated.  As  men  do  not  originate  an  institution 
until  the  concrete  immediate  need  of  doing  so  arises,  so 
they  do  not  modify  such  as  they  happen  to  be  bom  to 
until  there  is  urgent  need  of  doing  it.  Indeed,  owing  to 
man's  inertia,  the  need  must  be  of  great  intensity  or 
duration  before  much  effort  is  made  to  meet  it,  either 
by  originating  or  modifying  institutions.  There  is  thus 
always  a  lag  in  adapting  human  habits  to  human  needs, 
the  lag  being  greater  as  the  need  is  less  urgent. 

This  method  of  improvising  institutions  without  con- 
sidering their  more  remote  results  is  the  method  of  drift 
so  familiar  throughout  history  and  so  habitual  through- 
out society  to-day.  It  is  the  confirmed  habit  of  men  to 
drift  from  one  policy  to  another,  following  the  line  of 
least  intellectual  resistance.  Instead  of  thinking  things 
out  so  tliat  their  institutions  may  accomplish  the  most 

31 


32      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

useful  results,  immediate  and  remote,  they  try  to  patch 
up  old  institutions  so  as  to  just  "get  by"  with  the  least 
possible  change  in  habitual  usages.  They  resort  to  a 
makeshift — to  what  old-time  folks  call  a  "  'twill  do" — 
which,  put  to  the  test,  too  often  turns  out  to  be  a  "  'twon't 
do."  When  some  obtrusive  evil  stares  men  in  the  face 
they  ask  themselves,  not.  Is  a  change  useful?  but.  Is  it 
necessary  ?  The  idea  being  that  changes  should  be  made, 
not  when  it  is  useful  to  make  them,  but  only  when  it  is 
absolutely  necessary ;  and  then  that  the  change  should  be, 
not  the  most  useful  change  available,  but  the  change  in- 
volving the  minimum  departure  from  the  status  quo 
compatible  with  removing  the  immediate  necessity  of 
further  change.  It  is  no  wonder  that  practices  so  estab- 
lished are  liable  to  perversion. 

Examples  of  these  "quick  results"  ways  of  doing 
things,  superficially  beneficial  and  remotely  baneful,  are 
so  common  as  to  be  commonplace. 

Thus  for  example  we  preserve,  and  permit  the  propa- 
gation of,  the  feeble-minded  and  unfit  and  as  an  immedi- 
ate eflFect  promote  comfort  and  ameliorate  life  for  them ; 
as  a  remote  effect,  deteriorate  the  race  and  saddle  posterity 
with  debts  and  difficulties  vastly  greater  than  those  which 
the  immediate  remedies  relieve. 

Thus  we  wastefully  exhaust  the  mines,  deplete  the 
forests,  sap  the  soil,  and  generally  "develop"  the  re- 
sources of  a  country,  getting  as  an  immediate  result 
cheaply  won  wealth  for  the  first  comers ;  and  as  a  remote 
one,  hard  won  wealth,  poverty,  struggle  and  difficulty  for 
the  many  who  come  after  them. 

Thus  we  build  our  cities  by  letting  each  person  come 
in  and  settle  in  the  easiest  way  possible,  putting  his 
house,  his  factory,  his  shop,  or  his  barn  where  most 
convenient  for  him.  The  immediate  effect  is  a  quick 
and  easy  settlement  with  the  minimum  of  interference 
with  the  whims  of  the  first  settlers.    The  remote  effects 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      33 

are  city  streets  marked  out  by  cows,  factories  and 
slaughter  houses  in  residence  districts,  residences  where 
shops  ought  to  be,  gas  works  and  tenement  houses  in  just 
the  right  spot  for  warehouses,  and  railroad  terminals, 
parks  and  public  buildings  stuck  in  wherever  the  plan- 
lessness  of  the  whole  proceeding  has  left  a  chance  place 
for  them.  Instances  might  be  indefinitely  multiplied  of 
this  drifting,  planless  method  of  grafting  ill  growths 
upon  good,  and  of  adopting  practices  which  meet 
an  evil  on  a  small  scale  only  to  cause  it  on  a  large  one. 

Origin  of  Property.  One  of  the  best  examples  of 
this  process  is  exhibited  by  the  growth  of  the  institution 
of  property,  an  institution  found  in  some  form  among 
all  peoples  and  hence  obviously  originating  in  some  uni- 
versal immediate  need.  The  necessity  which  has  forced 
this  institution  on  people  is  plain  enough.  It  is  the 
need  for  security  in  the  use  of  the  things,  particularly  the 
material  things,  which  have  immediate  direct  relation  to 
the  welfare  of  each  individual.  It  is  a  practice  originally 
improvised  to  meet  the  evil  of  universal  robbery  among 
individuals.  Communities  can  no  more  gain  a  subsist- 
ence by  the  members  robbing  one  another  than  by  taking 
in  one  another's  washing.  The  privilege  of  robbery,  if 
restricted  to  a  class,  would  doubtless  be  a  material  benefit 
to  that  class,  but  it  can  be  of  no  use  to  a  whole  com- 
munity. Any  system  of  sponging,  if  mutual,  leaves  no 
one  a  beneficiary.  Yet  probably  among  cave  men  as 
among  cave  bears  robbery  was  a  privilege  accorded  to 
all.  It  was  a  human,  as  it  is  still  an  animal,  institution. 
The  intelligence  of  the  bear  was  insufficient  to  improvise 
an  improvement  on  it,  but  after  thousands  of  years  of 
hard  knocks,  no  doubt,  groups  of  men  came  to  some 
understanding  about  the  matter.  They  became  tired  of 
having  the  food,  clothes,  weapons  and  implements  that 


34      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

they  needed  to  use,  subject  to  appropriation  by  any  one 
strong,  sly,  or  otherwise  possessed  of  "ability"  enough 
to  appropriate  them ;  and  thus  an  understanding  grew  up 
that  any  one  helping  himself  freely  to  what  his  neigh- 
bors had  become  lawfully  possessed  of  would  get  into 
trouble  with  the  whole  neighborhood — that  the  com- 
munity generally  would  make  it  worth  whil-e  for  robbers 
to  discontinue  robbery,  and  would  use  some  sort  of  a 
communal  club  to  enforce  their  point  of  view. 

This  invasion  of  the  sacred  right  of  stealing  was  the 
origin  of  the  institution  of  property.  It  interfered 
mightily  with  personal  liberty  and  individual  initiative. 
It  discouraged  enterprise — of  the  kind  that  flourished 
prior  to  its  establishment.  We  may  be  sure  that  it 
always  caused  loud  complaints  of  the  invasion  of  man's 
inalienable  right  of  free  appropriation,  made  sacred  by 
th€  immemorial  practice  of  generations.  All  the  con- 
servatives would  be  against  it,  and  would  use  the  usual 
conservative  arguments.  It  may  seem  strange  to  think 
that  the  idea  of  private  property  was  once  a  radical  idea, 
but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was.  The  oldest,  most 
primitive  of  the  rights  of  man  is  the  right  to  take  what  he 
wants  wherever  he  finds  it — from  his  neighbor  if  that  is 
the  handiest  place  to  get  it.  This  right  dates  back  of  man 
himself  to  his  animal  forbears,  and  still  exists  among 
them.  It  is  the  right  of  mutual  appropriation.  If  you 
wish  to  see  the  origin  of  the  institution  of  property  throw 
an  apple  core  into  a  hen  yard.  Thus  simple  is  the  need 
which  led  to  an  institution  so  universal. 

Purpose  of  Property.  From  the  origin  of  the 
institution  of  property  it  is  easy  to  perceive  its  purpose, 
for  its  purpose  was  fixed  by  the  need  which  it  was 
designed  to  meet.  The  original  idea,  essence  and  purpose 
of  property  was  to  secure  to  a  person  or  group  of  persons 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      35 

the  use  and  control  of  the  things  which  that  person  or 
group  needed  for  his  or  its  own  subsistence  and  welfare. 
Ownership  simply  meant  a  security  of  control  guaranteed 
to  the  extent  of  its  power  by  the  community — the  tribe, 
the  village,  the  nation,  or  whatever  group  of  persons 
acted  for  such  a  purpose  as  a  unit. 

That  it  is  useful  to  guarantee  to  a  person  what  he  uses, 
to  conjoin  use  and  ownership,  is  so  obvious  that  even 
primitive  man  perceived  it.  Not  that  the  community 
guaranteed  the  supply  of  each  person's  needs — the 
difficulties  of  supply  are  too  great  in  a  primitive  society 
for  that — but  it  guaranteed  peaceful  possession.  It  left 
men  the  right  to  despoil  nature  to  get  what  they  needed, 
but  denied  them  the  right  to  despoil  their  fellow  man.  The 
whole  practice  originated  in  the  importance  to  a  person 
of  the  undisturbed  control  of  that  which  he  needed  to  use. 

This  union  of  use  and  ownership  is  almost  perfect  in 
primitive  society.  When  we  know  what  group  of  society 
, needed  to  use  any  particular  kind  of  property  we  can  tell 
what  group  owned  it.  Thus  each  individual  owned  his 
clothes  because  he  alone  needed  to  use  them,  but  tents, 
cooking  utensils,  domestic  animals,  etc.,  were  owned  by 
the  family,  because  they  were  used  by  the  family,  and  the 
land  or  hunting  grounds  were  owned  in  common  because 
used  in  common.  Thus  each  aggregate  of  the  community 
owned  what  it  used,  an  arrangement  so  obviously 
advantageous  that  no  one  could  fail  to  see  it. 

This  original  form  of  property  obtains  very  widely 
even  to-day.  In  America  we  have  only  to  go  back  to  the 
colonial  period  to  find  it  in  almost  its  primitive  form. 
To  be  sure  agriculture  had  changed  the  aspect  of  the 
ownership  of  land.  The  early  colonial  farmer  owned 
arable  land  because  he  needed  it  for  his  own  use,  but  the 
great  forest  hunting  grounds  because  used  by  all  were 
still  common  property,  as  among  the  Indians. 


36      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I    '  '  — ^ 

Beginnings  of  the  Perversion  of  Property.  But 
even  in  colonial  America  there  is  clearly  to  be  seen  the 
beginning  of  the  crack  or  rupture  of  the  institution  of 
property,  the  entering  wedge  of  the  change  which 
perverted  it.  The  mischief  began  when  the  process  of 
division  of  economic  function  began.  It  started  with  the 
appearance  in  society  of  the  distinction  between  the 
manipulator  or  operator,  and  the  consumptive  user,  the 
producer  and  the  consumer  of  property.  So  long  as  this 
division  remained  within  the  family  there  was  no  real 
difficulty,  because  the  interests  of  the  members  of  the 
family  were  the  same.  On  the  old-time  farm  the  farmer 
was  the  exclusive  operator  of  the  plow,  but  he  was  not 
the  exclusive  user  of  it.  The  whole  family  were  the 
users  of  it,  because  they  had  use  for  it.  The  farmer 
himself  used  it  both  productively  and  consumptively — 
the  rest  of  the  family  only  used  it  consumptively;  but 
obviously  the  idea  of  use  in  its  original  relation  to  owner- 
ship includes  both  productive  and  consumptive  use. 
Those  persons  should  control  a  thing  who  use  it,  whether 
productively  or  consumptively.  Mere  operation  is  not 
use.  Similarly  the  farmer's  wife  was  perhaps  the  ex- 
clusive operator  of  the  kitchen  range  or  of  its  primitive 
counterpart  the  turn-spit  and  cooker,  but  the  whole 
family  were  the  users  of  it,  because  certain  of  their  needs 
were  met  and  their  welfare  determined  by  its  instrumen- 
tality. Thus  the  plow  and  the  cook  stove  were  in  effect 
the  property  of  the  family,  and  this  is  in  complete  accord 
with  the  original  idea  and  purpose  of  property.  Perhaps 
the  actual  title  was  in  the  farmer  as  the  head  of  the 
family,  but  had  he  attempted  to  exclude  the  rest  of  the 
family  from  their  use  on  that  ground  he  would  have 
found  that  the  real  title  was  in  the  family ;  and  had  he  or 
his  wife  attempted  to  assert  their  exclusive  right  to. the 
product  of  the  plow  or  of  the  cook  stove  respectively 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      37 

because  they  were  the  exclusive  operators  thereof,  they 
would  have  found  that  the  community  would  tolerate 
no  such  grotesque  idea  of  property.  Within  the  family 
the  original  idea  of  the  conjunction  of  ownership  and  use 
still  obtains,  because  there  is  within  the  family  no  con- 
flict of  interest  to  disturb  the  original  relation. 

When  farmer  Jonathan  eats  the  uncooked  products 
raised  by  himself  there  is  no  distinction  between  operator 
and  user.  There  is  not  even  an  exchange  of  services. 
The  man  serves  himself.  When  Jonathan  and  his  wife 
Abigail  sit  down  to  eat  the  cooked  products  of  the  farm 
there  is  a  distinction  between  operator  and  user  and  an 
exchange  of  services  between  Jonathan  and  his  wife.  He 
has  operated  the  outdoor  economy,  she  the  indoor 
economy,  of  the  household,  and  they  perform  mutual 
service ;  there  is  exchange,  but  still  the  exchange  involves 
no  bargaining  or  trading  and  therefore  causes  no  trouble. 

The  division  of  economic  function  when  it  gets  outside 
the  family  however  at  once  begins  to  develop  a  morbid 
and  malignant  growth  in  the  institution  of  property, 
which,  as  usual  with  such  growths,  is  too  small  to  be 
noticed.  These  beginnings  date  back  to  prehistoric  times, 
but  primitive  economic  relations  survive  in  society  and 
exist  side  by  side  with  modem  ones,  just  as  among 
organisms  the  lowly  amoeba  exists  side  by  side  with  man 
and  other  mammals.  Hence  we  do  not  need  to  go  back 
to  primitive  society  to  see  how  the  institution  of  property 
developed  the  morbid  growth  which  perverted  it.  We 
can  see  it  in  the  survival  of  primitive  things  which  exist 
all  around  us,  but  which  are  more  characteristic  of 
colonial  times  than  of  our  own. 

Consider  for  example  the  industrial  relation  of  the 
village  blacksmith  to  the  community.  It  differed  in  a 
critical  way  from  that  of  the  farmer  to  his  family.  The 
colonial  farmer's  family,  with  only  slight  exceptions,  con- 


88      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

sumed  what  it  produced.  Productive  and  consumptive 
use  were  all  within  the  family.  The  family  worked  for 
itself.  This  is  the  old  individualistic  basis  of  industry. 
But  the  blacksmith  works  for  some  one  -else.  He  special- 
izes on  blacksmithing.  H-e  is  the  user  of  the  tools  of 
industry  only  in  the  sense  of  being  the  manipulator  or 
operator  of  them.  The  results  of  his  manipulation  are 
of  use  to  others — to  the  neighborhood  at  large.  In  order 
to  make  his  work  count  consumptively  for  himself  there- 
fore he  must  receive  something  as  payment  for  his 
operative  services — exchange  becomes  necessary,  and  the 
exchange,  in  contrast  to  that  between  the  farmer  and  his 
wife,  is  outside  of  the  family. 

Now  when  exchange  outside  of  the  family  begins, 
bargaining  begins.  A  conflict  of  interest  between  the 
blacksmith  and  his  customers,  between  productive  and 
consumptive  use,  is  set  up.  The  economic  interest  of 
each  party  to  a  bargain  is  to  give  as  little  and  receive  as 
much  as  possible.  This  bargaining  process,  originating  in 
the  simple,  inevitable  and  beneficial  process  of  division  of 
function,  is  the  germ  of  all  the  evils  of  our  economic 
system ;  from  th-e  nuisance,  waste  and  nonsense  of  the 
dickering  and  chaffering  of  the  oriental  bazaar,  to  the 
vast  oppression  of  producer  and  consumer  worked  by 
our  giant  monopolies. 

Origin  of  Capitalism.  Just  as  soon  as  the  old  indi- 
vidualistic basis  of  industry  gave  way  to  what  we  may 
call  the  socialistic  basis,  represented  by  the  work  of  the 
village  blacksmith,  just  as  soon  as  producer  and 
consumer  ceased  to  be  the  same,  or  within  the  same 
family,  just  as  soon  as  the  operator  began  to  operate  for 
some  one  outside  his  family,  for  some  one  whose  gain 
was  not  his  gain,  whose  loss  was  not  his  loss,  the  breach 
in  the  institution  of  property  was  opened  up  into  which 
has  stepped  what  is  now  called  the  capitalist,  or  economic 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      39 

middleman,   standing  between  producer  and  consumer 
and  drawing  sustenance  from  both. 

In  its  primitive  form  capitalism  does  not  reveal  its 
most  characteristic  feature,  because  the  manipulator  and 
the  capitalist  are  the  same.  The  primitive  cobbler,  tailor 
and  blacksmith  all  owned  their  tools  and  worked  with 
them.  This  form  survives,  and  is  indeed  common,  to-day, 
and  involves  some  conflict  of  economic  interest,  though 
of  a  simpler  character  than  in  the  more  developed  stages 
of  capitalism.  But  as  the  division  of  function  in  economic 
affairs  increases,  as  industrial  establishments  augment 
in  size  and  complexity,  and  particularly  as  the  processes 
of  scientific  discovery  and  invention  render  more 
important  the  part  that  machinery  plays  in  production, 
a  further  division  of  function  occurs.  As  the  first  stage 
in  the  development  of  capitalism  separated  operative 
,from  consumptive  user,  so  the  second  stage  separates 
owner  from  operator.  Thus  the  evolution  of  industry, 
starting  with  the  single  family  unit  in  which  producer, 
consumer  and  owner  are  united,  results  finally  in  a 
system  in  which  they  are  separated.  In  place  of  a 
series  of  individualistic  units  each  of  which  owns  its 
own  means  of  production,  operates  it  for  its  own  benefit, 
and  consumes  its  own  product,  society  is  divided  into 
three  classes :  the  owners  of  the  means  of  production, 
the  operators  of  those  means,  and  the  consumers  of  the 
products  thereof.  Not  that  the  individuals  compos- 
ing these  classes  are  necessarily  distinct — indeed  all 
individuals  belong  to  the  third  class — it  is  the  interests 
which  are  distinct.  In  the  individualistic  stage  no  such 
conflict  of  interest  is  possible,  since  owner,  operator  and 
consumer  in  each  department  of  industry  are  one  and  the 
same.  In  the  final  capitalistic  stage  there  is  a  complex 
conflict  of  interest,  the  capitalist  or  owner  bargaining 
with  both  producer  and  consumer,  with  the  one  over 
wages,  with  the  other  over  prices. 


40      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Reversal  of  the  Purpose  of  Property.  But  it  may 
be  asked,  this  process  of  evolution  may  have  produced 
a  conflict  of  interest  in  society,  but  just  how  has  it 
perverted  the  institution  of  property?  How  has  it 
changed  it?  To  perceive  the  change  clearly,  recall  for 
a  moment  the  original  purpose  of  property — security  in 
the  use  of  things  to  those  who  use  them,  union  of  use  and 
ownership ;  and  then  notice  the  relation  between  use  and 
ownership  of  capitalistic  property,  that  is,  of  property 
owned  by  a  capitalist  in  his  capacity  as  a  capitalist.  Not 
his  hat,  his  shoes,  his  furniture,  or  the  house  he  lives  in, 
but  his  stocks,  his  bonds,  and  the  houses  and  lands  he 
rents  to  others.  You  will  notice  that  the  original 
relationship  is  reversed.  Instead  of  use  and  ownership 
being  conjoined  they  are  disjoined.  The  farmer  wishes 
to  own  his  plow  for  the  same  reason  that  the  capitalist 
wishes  to  own  his  hat,  because  he  wants  to  use  it 
personally.  But  the  capitalist  does  not  wish  to  own  his 
railroads  and  factories,  his  rented  houses  and  lands 
because  he  wishes  to  use  them,  but  because  some  one  else 
wishes  to  use  them.  He  wants  to  own  his  clothes  or  his 
umbrella  because  he  wishes  to  use  them,  but  he  wishes 
to  own  his  stocks,  bonds  and  rentable  real  estate  because 
he  wants  to  be  paid  for  owning  them,  and  he  can  not  be 
paid  for  owning  them  unless  some  one  else  needs  to  use 
them.  On  a  desert  island  they  would  be  valueless  to  hirh. 
Thus  the  whole  value  of  capitalistic  property  to  the 
capitalist  depends  upon  the  disjunction  between  use  and 
ownership — upon  the  complete  reversal  of  the  original 
purpose  of  property.  If  seems  strange  that  an  institution 
which  started  out  to  place  the  ownership  of  things  in  the 
hands  of  those  who  used  them  should  have  ended  by 
placing  the  ownership  of  a  large  class  of  things,  namely 
the  means  of  production  of  society,  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  do  not  use  them,  except  as  they  constitute  '  one 
fraction  of  the  consuming  public ;  but  this  reversal  of 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      41 

I 

the  purpose  of  property  has  taken  place  imperceptibly 
and  without  attracting  attention,  because  the  forms  of 
transfer  of  property  have  not  changed.  Title  to  property 
is  secured  in  the  same  way  it  always  has  been — by  direct 
appropriation  from  nature,  by  gift,  by  inheritance,  by 
purchase,  or  other  legal  assignment.  It  is  only  the 
purpose  of  the  institution  which  has  been  changed. 

Economic  Classes  Resulting  from  Capitalism.  Al- 
though in  its  evolution  property  has  thus  come  to  assume 
two  distinct  forms  of  opposing  characteristics,  it  is  not 
possible  to  draw  an  absolutely  sharp  line  of  distinction 
between  them.  Some  property  is  held  both  for  use  and 
for  income.  It  is  also  impossible  because  of  lack  of 
data  to  separate  industrial  society  into  two  distinct  classes 
— the  capitalists  and  the  non-capitalists.  This  fact  tends 
seriously  to  confuse  the  issue,  particularly  when  those 
who  contend  for  the  reasonableness  of  the  present  order 
of  things  cite  as  evidence  for  their  position  cases  of  an 
intermediate  character — which  they  generally  do. 

To  make  plain  what  I  refer  to,  let  us  contrast  a  clear 
with  an  obscure  case: 

A  ditch-digger,  or  brick-layer,  or  clerk,  who  works  for 
hire,  has  no  savings  bank  account  which  draws  interest, 
and  otherwise  receives  no  income  from  ownership  of 
property  in  the  form  of  rent,  interest,  dividends,  or  their 
equivalent,  is  a  clear  case  of  a  person  who  does  some- 
thing for  a  living. 

A  bondholder  who  has  inherited  half  a  million  dollars' 
worth  of  gilt-edged  bonds  from  his  father,  and  who  pays 
no  attention  to  business,  but  spends  his  Hfe  playing  golf, 
living  on  the  interest  to  which  he  is  entitled  because  of 
his  property  relation  to  certain  pieces  of  paper  (his 
bonds)  is  a  clear  case  of  a  person  who  owns  things  for' 
a  living. 

A  considerable  number  of  people  in  this  world  belong 


42      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

to  the  class  illustrated  by  the  bondholder,  and  a  vastly- 
larger  number  belong  to  the  class  illustrated  by  the  ditch- 
digger  or  clerk.  But  betw-een  the  two  classes  is  another 
class — in  this  country  it  is  probably  a  larger  class  than 
either  of  the  others — who  get  their  living  partly  by  doing 
things  and  partly  by  owning  things.  The  existence  of 
this  class  obscures  the  issue  of  capitalism,  because,  as 
just  remarked,  it  is  from  this  class  that  the  supporters 
of  that  system  are  accustomed  to  draw  their  examples 
of  the  typical  capitalist.  The  primitive  capitalist,  typified 
by  the  village  blacksmith  of  colonial  days — and  of  to-day 
for  that  matter — belonged  to  this  intermediate  class,  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  society  found  itself  living  under 
the  capitalist  system  without  knowing  exactly  when  or 
how  the  system  began.  In  more  recent  times  the  most 
conspicuous  example  of  this  intermediate  class  is  the 
business  man  who  h-elps  to  manage  an  industry  of  which 
he  is  owner  or  part  owner.  Between  the  cobbler 
who  uses  a  few  simple  tools  and  in  whose  operations 
doing  plays  so  large  and  owning  so  small  a  part;  and 
the  so-called  captain  of  industry  who  owns  a  vast 
industrial  plant  and  acts  as  the  figurehead  who  receives 
the  credit  for  running  it,  in  whose  operations  doing 
plays  so  small  and  owning  so  large  a  part,  there  is  every 
intermediate  gradation.  Therefore,  if  we  wish  to  see 
the  issue  of  capitalism  clearly  it  is  necessary  to  define, 
as  well  as  we  can,  what  we  mean  by  a  capitalist  and  what 
we  mean  by  a  non-capitalist. 

Now,  one  meaning  of  the  word  capitalist  is  a  person 
who  owns  capital,  but  this  is  not  what  the  critic  of 
capitalism  means  by  the  word.  Uncle  Sam  would  be 
a  capitalist  under  such  a  definition.  Another  meaning 
of  the  word  capitalist  is  one  who  is  paid  for  owning 
capital,  but  neither  is  this  what  the  critic  of  capitalism 
means  by  the  word.     Under  such  a  definition  a  ditch- 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      43 

digger  or  clerk  who  had  $7.50  in  the  savings  bank  and 
drew  thirty  cents  a  year  interest  would  be  a  capitalist. 

What  the  critic  of  capitalism  means  by  a  capitalist  is 
one  who  gains  more,  financially  or  -economically,  by  the 
system  of  capitalism — the  payment  for  ownership  system 
— than  he  loses;  and  by  a  non-capitalist  he  means  one 
who  loses  more,  economically,  than  he  gains  by  that 
system.  We  are  prevented  by  lack  of  data  from  saying 
just  where  the  line  between  these  two  classes  is  to  be 
drawn.  The  researches  of  Spahr  indicate  that  in  1890 
the  total  income  of  this  country  was  so  divided  that  40% 
was  received  as  the  reward  of  owning  and  60%  as  the 
reward  of  doing,  and  substantially  the  same  ratio  was 
found  to  hold  in  other  capitalistic  countries.  Other  in- 
quirers have  come  to  slightly  different  conclusions,  but  in 
,  the  absence  of  more  authoritative  figures  those  of  Spahr 
may  be  accepted  as  approximately  correct.  On  this  as- 
sumption the  distinction  between  the  capitalist  and  the 
non-capitalist  in  this  country  can  be  expressed  quite  de- 
finitely. On  the  average,  a  capitalist  is  one,  more  than  forty 
per  cent  of  whose  income  is  received  as  payment  for 
ownership,  and  a  non-capitalist  is  one,  less  than  forty 
per  cent  of  whose  income  is  so  received. 

This  clears  the  matter  up  some,  and  yet  even  on  this 
basis  it  is  not  always  possible  in  concrete  cases  to  say 
just  when  a  man  is  a  capitalist  and  just  when  he  is  not. 
In  the  case  of  a  blacksmith  or  a  business  man  who  helps 
to  operate  the  means  of  production  which  he  owns  it  is 
necessary  to  know  what  he  could  get  if  he  rented  or 
loaned  his  capital.  In  the  case  of  the  blacksmith  we 
should  find  this  was  normally  only  a  small  part  of  his 
total  income,  and  so  it  would  be  necessary  to  class  him 
as  a  non-capitalist;  and  in  the  case  of  the  big  business 
man  we  should  find  that  it  was  normally  a  large  part  of 
his  total  income,  and  so  we  should  have  to  class  him  as 
a  capitalist.     In  special  cases  where  fancy  salaries  or 


44      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  I 

fees  are  involved  other  data  would  be  required,  but  we 
cannot  go  into  the  minutiae  of  the  subject.  Enough  has 
been  said  to  show  that  the  only  thing  which  prevents  us 
from  making  a  sharp  distinction  between  the  capitalist 
and  the  non-capitalist  class  is  lack  of  data;  and  even  if 
this  were  not  the  case,  the  fact  that  intermediate  grada- 
tions between  the  two  classes  exist  should  no  more 
obscure  the  distinction  between  them  than  the  existence 
of  purple  should  obscure  the  distinction  between  red  and 
blue,  or  the  existence  of  gray  the  distinction  between 
black  and  white. 

Let  no  man  who  receives  a  few  dollars  a  year  from 
interest,  rent,  dividends  or  other  income  yielding 
property,  delude  himself  into  the  belief  that  he  is  there- 
fore a  beneficiary  of  the  present  system,  Capitalism 
may  with  some  ostentation  put  a  little  money  into  the 
left  hand  pocket  of  the  struggling  farmer,  merchant, 
clerk  or  laborer,  but  what  is  it  doing  to  the  right  hand 
pocket?  It  is  taking  more  than  a  little  out — ^but  without 
ostentation.  The  income  which  capitalism  puts  into  one 
pocket  of  the  poor  man  is  in  the  visible  form  of  cash. 
The  outgo  which  it  abstracts  from  the  other  pocket  is  in 
the  invisible  form  of  increased  prices  and  decreased 
wages  made  necessary  to  pay  tribute  to  the  property  of 
others.  In  general  if  a  man  receives  more  than  forty 
per  cent  of  his  income  from  property,  then  capitalism  is 
putting  more  into  his  left  hand  pocket  than  it  is  taking 
from  his  right  hand  pocket,  and  he  is  a  capitalist,  and 
gains  by  the  system;  but  if  he  gets  less  than  forty 
per  cent,  the  situation  is  reversed;  he  is  not  a  capitalist 
and  he  loses  by  the  system.  If  you  want  to  know 
whether  you  are  a  real  capitalist  or  not,  watch  your  right 
hand  pocket  as  closely  as  your  left,  for  capitalism  while 
ostentatiously  tossing  money  into  one  pocket  is  stealthily 
picking  the  other,  and  you  cannot  tell  whether  you  are 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      45 

[  ;^ 

the  gainer  or  the  loser  by  the  two  processes  unless  you 
compare  the  amount  received  with  th-e  amount  abstracted. 

Conjunctive  and  Disjunctive  Property.  Although 
the  rise  of  capitalism  has  divided  property  into  two 
classes  of  widely  different  purpose  and  utility  so  little 
attention  has  been  given  the  matter  that  no  single  names 
exist  by  which  to  distinguish  them.  It  is,  however,  so 
much  worth  while  to  have  a  ready  means  of  distinction 
that  I  shall  coin  some  names  for  this  purpose.  We 
might  call  property  held  for  use  unperverted  property, 
because  it  retains  its  original  purpose,  and  to  property 
held  for  income  we  might  apply  the  name  perverted 
property,  because  of  its  pverversion  of  the  original  purpose 
of  property;  but  these  names  are  not  ideal  because  they 
imply  a  criticism  or  judgment;  they  are  not  purely 
descriptive.  The  names  unreversed  and  reversed  might 
be  used  in  place  of  unperverted  and  perverted,  these 
names  implying  simply  the  reversal  in  the  purpose  of 
fwoperty  which  the  rise  of  property  held  for  income 
involves.  But  the  best  terms  it  seems  to  me  are  conjunc- 
tive and  disjunctive,  because  they  express  the  actual 
relationship  between  use  and  ownership  which  the  two 
forms  of  property  involve.  Thus  a  man's  clothes, 
furniture  and  personal  belongings  are  unperverted,  un- 
reversed, or  conjunctive  property.  He  does  not  expect 
to  derive  an  income  from  their  ownership,  but  owns  them 
because  he  wants  to  use  them.  Stocks,  bonds,  mortgages 
and  any  kind  of  property  for  which  interest,  dividends 
or  rent  is  received  is  perverted,  reversed  or  disjunctive 
property.  No  one  has  any  object  in  owning  it,  except  to 
receive  payment  for  his  ownership. 

It  is  commonly  supposed  that  disjunctive  is  as  useful 
to  the  community  as  conjunctive  property.  Yet  should 
we  suggest  a  specific  case  of  converting  the  conjunctive 
to  the  disjunctive  form,  I  do  not  think  we  could  arouse 


46      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

any  enthusiasm  for  it.  It  is  only  when  the  reversed 
relationship  is  drifted  into  that  it  becomes  acceptable. 
For  instance,  if  it  is  well  to  separate  the  ownership  of  a 
public  utility  from  the  public  which  uses  it,  why  would 
it  not  be  well  to  separate  the  ownership  of  a  private 
utility  from  the  person  who  uses  it?  If  it  is  best  to  have 
a  nation  pay  some  one  for  consenting  to  own  the  rail- 
roads and  the  great  industrial  plants  that  the  nation  uses, 
why  would  it  not  be  best  to  have  each  man  pay  some  one 
for  consenting  to  own  the  hat  or  the  coat  he  uses?  In 
this  way  we  should  hav-e  added  to  the  community  a  new 
class  of  capitalists,  engaged  in  the  lucrative  and  useful 
occupation  of  owning  other  people's  hats  and  coats,  or 
at  least  the  hats  and  coats  that  other  people  use,  for  a 
living.  If  the  separation  of  ownership  and  use  is  a  good 
thing,  as  all  who  believe  in  capitalism  contend,  why  not 
push  it  along,  why  not  extend  it  ?  Can  we  have  too  much 
of  such  a  good  thing?  Why  is  disjunction  so  good  where 
it  is  customary  and  so  bad  where  it  is  not  ? 

Democracy  and  Oligarchy  in  Property.  But  an- 
other feature  of  the  contrast  between  conjunctive  and 
disjunctive  property  is  important  to  notice,  namely,  that 
it  is  the  same  contrast  to  be  observed  between  democracy 
and  oligarchy  elsewh-ere.  Ownership  is  but  an  expedient 
for  controlling  or  ruling  over  property.  Democracy  being 
the  rule  of  a  given  group  of  people  over  what  concerns 
them,  requires  that  whatever  group  is  concerned  with 
or  affected  by  the  management  of  a  given  property  shall 
rule  over  that  conduct.  Every  one  is  concerned  with 
what  they  use.  Therefore  whatever  group  of  men  use  a 
given  property  should,  according  to  democratic  principles, 
rule  it;  and  they  cannot  very  well  rule  what  some  one 
else  owns.  Conjunctive  property  therefore  conforms  to 
the  requirements  of  democracy  and  might  appropriately 
be  called  democratic  property,  while  disjunctive  property 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      47 

conforms  to  the  requirements  of  oligarchy,  and  might  as 
appropriately  be  called  oligarchic  property.  In  other 
words,  democracy,  whether  in  the  institution  of  property 
or  of  government,  involves  conjoining  the  power  to  rule 
with  the  interest  of  those  concerned  in  the  exercise  of 
that  power,  as  oligarchy  whether  in  property  or  in  govern- 
ment involves  disjoining  them.  Thus  from  whatever 
angle  we  view  the  issue  between  the  private  and  public 
ownership  of  industries  the  conduct  of  which  materially 
affects  the  interests  of  the  public,  it  resolves  itself  into 
the  same  old  issue  between  democracy  and  oligarchy.  Is 
there  any  doubt  where  consistent  Americanism  stands  on 
that  issue? 

Just  above  I  have  spoken  of  "industries,  the  conduct 
'of  which  materially  affects  the  interests  of  the  public." 
As  I  shall  have  frequent  occasion  to  refer  to  such  in- 
dustries, and  as  this  phrase  is  an  awkwardly  long  one  to 
use  in  referring  to  them,  I  shall  hereafter  simply  call 
them  "public  industries,"  and  to  those  industries  the  con- 
duct of  which  does  not  materially  affect  the  interests  of 
the  public  I  shall  give  the  name  "private  industries." 
Thus  in  the  days  of  the  spinning  wheel  the  textile 
industry  was  a  private  industry,  while  to-day  it  is  a 
public  one.  Hence  its  private  ownership  in  old  times 
was  democratic,  whereas  to-day  it  is  not. 

How  to  Restore  the  Institution  of  Property.     The 

consequences  of  the  perversion  of  the  original  purpose 
of  property  are  so  vast  that  I  will  make  no  attempt  to 
enumerate  them  here.  They  include  practically  all  the 
economic  evils  of  our  day  and  all  of  the  non-economic 
evils  which  have  their  source  in  economic  ones. 
Completely  to  remedy  these  innumerable  ills  it  will  be 
necessary  to  abolish  the  conflict  of  interest  between 
owner,  producer,  and  consumer,  to  abolish  the  practice 
of  payment  for  ownership,  and  indeed  to  abolish  the 


48     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I  — 

process  of  bargaining  itself.  And  this  can  all  be  ac- 
complished by  restoring  the  original  basis  and  purpose 
of  property;  by  re-reversing  reversed  property,  by  again 
conjoining  use  and  ownership;  by  providing  once  more 
that  whatever  aggregate  of  society  uses  any  given 
property,  that  aggregate  shall  own  it.  This  of  course 
involves  the  abolition  of  the  system  of  capitalism  which 
requires  the  private  ownership  both  of  private  and 
public  industries,  and  the  establishment  in  its  place  of  a 
system  providing  for  the  private  ownership  of  private 
industries  and  the  public  ownership  of  public  ones. 
Socialism  is  the  commonest  name  of  the  system  which 
provides  for  this,  and  thus  it  is  obvious  that  socialism, 
far  from  seeking  to  destroy  the  institution  of  property, 
seeks  but  to  restore  it.  That  which  it  would  destroy  is 
not  property  but  the  perversion  of  property  involved  in 
capitalism.  It  is  opposed,  not  to  private  property,  as  its 
enemies  contend,  but  to  disjunctive  or  undemocratic 
property  only.  It  seeks  to  reunite  ownership  and  use  on 
a  basis  which  will  combine  the  harmony  of  the  old 
individualism  with  the  efficiency  of  the  new  collectivism, 
thus  converting  property  from  the  disjunctive  to  the 
conjunctive  form  without  loss  of  the  benefits  of  social- 
ized industry.  For  it  is  worth  while  to  repeat  that  the 
public  does  not  own  its  industries  in  order  to  be  paid 
for  owning  them,  but  in  order  to  use  them.  Uncle  Sam 
has  the  same  kind  of  use  for  the  railroads  that  furnish 
him  and  his  goods  transportation  and  the  textile  mills 
that  furnish  him  his  clothing,  that  Uncle  John  Jones 
has  for  the  hat  and  the  coat  he  wears.  Public  industries 
bear  to  the  public  the  same  relation  that  private  industries 
bear  to  an  individual,  and  therefore  when  publicly  owned, 
present  the  unperverted,  unreversed  conjunctive,  dem- 
ocratic form  and  purpose  which  all  property  originally 
possessed. 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      49 

Capitalism  Inconsistent  with  Americanism.  In  this 
connection,  let  me  once  again  call  to  your  attention  a 
pertinent  incident  of  American  history.  In  i860  Stephen 
A.  Douglas,  then  the  leader  of  the  Democratic  party, 
claimed  that  the  attitude  of  the  Republicans  toward 
slavery  w^as  subversive  of  the  policy  originated  by  "our 
fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we 
live."  In  his  famous  Cooper  Union  speech  Lincoln 
replied  to  this  claim,  proving  conclusively  that  it  was  not 
the  Republicans,  but  Douglas  and  the  other  politicians 
then  in  power,  who  were  subverting  that  policy.  There 
is  one  passage  in  this  speech  which  I  wish  to  commend 
to  those  alleged  conservatives  who  claim  that  socialism  is 
subversive  of  the  traditions  of  Americanism.  By  making 
the  single  change  noted  in  parenthesis  in  this  passage 
Lincoln  speaks  exactly  as  a  socialist  is  entitled  to  speak 
to  the  present  generation  of  American  reactionaries : 

"You  say  you  are  conservative — eminently  conservative — while 
we  are  revolutionary,  destructive,  or  something  of  the  sort. 
What  is  conservatism?  Is  it  not  adherence  to  the  old  and  tried, 
against  the  new  and  untried?  We  stick  to,  contend  for,  the 
identical  old  policy  on  the  point  in  controversy  which  was 
adopted  by  'our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which 
we  live';  while  you  with  one  accord  reject,  and  scout,  and  spit 
upon  that  old  policy,  and  insist  upon  substituting  something  new. 

"Again  you  say  we  have  made  the  question  of  slavery  (cap- 
italism) more  prominent  than  it  formerly  was.  We  deny  it.  We 
admit  that  it  is  more  prominent,  but  we  deny  that  we  made  it 
so.  It  was  not  we,  but  you,  who  discarded  the  old  policy  of  the 
fathers.  We  resisted,  and  still  resist  your  innovation ;  and  thence 
comes  the  greater  prominence  of  the  question.  Would  you  have 
that  question  reduced  to  its  former  proportions?  Go  back  to 
that  old  policy.  What  has  been  will  be  again,  under  the  same 
conditions.  If  you  would  have  the  peace  of  the  old  times,  readopt 
the  precepts  and  policy  of  the  old  times. 

Consider  this  passage  in  connection  with  the  foregoing 
discussion  of  old  time  Yankee  property  relations.    Can 


60      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

any  man  deny  that  it  does  not  apply  to  the  present  issue 
between  capitaHsm  and  socialism?  If  so,  let  him  name 
a  single  example  of  the  private  operation  of  an  essen- 
tial public  function,  corresponding  to  a  modern  public 
industry,  which  was  sanctioned  by  "our  fathers  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live."  Examples 
of  such  misplaced  power  existed  in  colonial  times.  They 
were  to  be  found  in  the  proprietary  and  royal  govern- 
ments of  the  original  colonies.  But  they  were  not 
sanctioned  by  our  Revolutionary  forbears.  Quite  the 
contrary.  For  it  was  by  overthrowing  these  examples 
of  the  private  operation  of  public  functions  that  "our 
fathers"  got  the  chance  "to  frame  the  government  under 
which  we  live."  In  other  words,  the  American  system  of 
government  originated  from  the  rejection  of  the  very 
policy  which  the  "conservative"  of  the  present  day 
contends  for.  By  what  authority  then  does  he,  or  any 
man  who  advocates  the  private  ownership  and  operation 
of  public  industry  to-day,  claim  to  be  advocating  a 
policy  sanctioned  by  our  forefathers?  By  no  authority 
whatever  can  he  do  it.  He  no  more  represents  the  policy 
of  the  fathers  than  Douglas  did.  He  represents  the  Tory 
policy  which  those  fathers  rejected.  The  only  difference 
is  that  the  brand  of  "taxation  without  representation'' 
which  he  advocates  is  imposed  by  industrial  instead  of 
by  political  kings.  The  consistent  American  policy  re^ 
quires  self-government  in  industry  as  in  politics.  For 
the  essential  distinction  which  properly  separates  public 
from  private  functions  is  not  the  distinction  insisted  on 
by  our  politicians  and  economists — between  political 
affairs  and  economic  affairs.  It  is  the  far  more  vital 
distinction  insisted  on  by  Lincoln,  between  affairs  which 
concern  the  public  and  affairs  which  do  not.  He  who 
does  not  recognize  this  does  not  know  true  Americanism 
when  he  sees  it;  and  to  him  the  advocate  of  consistent 
democracy  is  entitled  with  Lincoln  to  say :  "We  stick  to, 


PERVERSION  OF  PROPERTY      51 

I  -^^ 

contend  for  the  identical  old  policy  which  was  adopted  by 
*our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we 
live';  while  you  with  one  accord  reject,  and  scout,  and 
spit  upon  that  old  policy.  .  .  .  We  still  resist  your 
innovation ;  and  thence  comes  the  greater  prominence  of 
the  question.  If  you  would  hav€  the  peace  of  the  old 
times  readopt  the  precepts  and  policy  of  the  old  times." 

How  Socialism  Proposes  to  Inaugurate  the  Brother- 
hood of  Man.  By  restoring  property  to  its  original 
democratic  form  socialism  will  once  more  make  of 
industry  a  family  affair  with  no  conflict  of  economic 
interest  involved,  only  the  family  will  be  larger  than  in 
earlier  times.  It  will  include  the  whole  community,  and 
eventually  we  have  reason  to  hope  all  mankind.  It  will 
reproduce  on  a  world-wide  scale  the  cooperative  com- 
monwealth that  the  primitive  family  represented  in 
miniature.  This  is  the  socialist  conception  of  the  brother- 
hood of  man;  a  brotherhood  based,  not  on  exhortations 
toymen  to  treat  their  fellow-men  like  brothers,  not  found- 
ing its  faith  on  the  hope  that  man's  heart  may  be  softened 
and  human  natur-e  suffer  a  change  by  the  mere  force 
of  good  advice;  but  established  on  the  firm  basis  of 
properly  constructed  institutions,  which  will  tend  to 
harmonize  men's  interests  just  as  the  institution  of  the 
family  tends  to  harmonize  them;  which  will  produce 
brotherly  feeling  among  men  by  bringing  them  into 
brotherly  relations  with  one  another,  instead  of  setting 
each  man  against  his  brother  man,  as  the  competitive 
system  of  capitalism  does.  The  policy  of  trying  to  make 
men  love  one  another  by  telling  them  to  do  so  has  been 
tried  for  at  least  two  thousand  years.  Observe  the 
Christian  nations  of  the  world  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1918  and  see  how  much  it  has  accomplished!  Those  who 
propose  to  wait  until  men  are  made  good  before  they 
attempt  to  perfect  human  institutions   on  the  ground 


52      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

that  good  institutions  require  good  men  to  carry  them 
on  have  a  discouraging  outlook  before  them.  A  thousand 
centuries  will  find  them  where  they  are  now.  Human 
nature  can  only  be  changed  by  setting  in  operation  the 
causes  which  can  change  it,  and  mere  preaching  is  not 
one  of  them.  By  bringing  men  into  proper  relations  with 
one  another  by  means  of  proper  institutions  their  habits 
and  attitudes  can  be  changed.  They  have  often  been 
changed  by  such  means  in  the  past.  The  good  in  human 
nature  can  be  brought  out  by  harmonizing  human 
interests  as  the  bad  can  be  brought  out  by  antagonizing 
them.  The  brand  of  human  nature  which  makes  of  the 
family  a  successful  institution  will  make  a  success  of  any 
institution  as  well  adapted  to  human  nature  as  the  institu- 
tion of  the  family  is.  It  is  because  capitalism  is  not  such 
an  institution,  is  not  adapted  to  human  nature,  that  it  is 
such  a  failure — such  a  source  of  unbrotherliness  and 
strife.  To  place  men  in  such  a  situation  that  they  must 
be  continually  bargaining  and  cor^tending  and  competing 
with  one  another,  and  then  tell  them  to  practice  brotherly 
love,  is  to  put  a  strain  upon  human  nature  greater  than  it 
is  able  to  bear.  When  ownership  and  use  are  divided 
it  takes  more  than  preaching  the  golden  rule  to 
unite  them.  Socialism  by  doing  away  with  the  con- 
tending relations  between  men  does  away  with  the  cause 
of  contention;  and  hence  socialists  do  not  need  to  wait 
for  human  nature  to  change  before  moving  forward. 
Nor  do  they  propose  to.  What  they  do  propose  to  do  is 
to  change  human  habits  and  usages  by  exchanging  an 
institution  which  is  not  in  harmony  with  human  nature 
for  an  institution  which  is  in  harmony  with  it.  By  re- 
placing capitalism  with  socialism  they  propose  to  restore 
the  institution  of  property  to  its  original  unperverted, 
democratic  basis,  convert  society  into  one  great  in- 
dustrial family  of  united  interests,  and  thus  institute  a 
practical,  if  yet  imperfect,  brotherhood  among  men. 


Ill 


WHY  THE  CAPITALIST  IS 
NOT  A  ROBBER 

What  Is  a  Robber?  One  of  the  commonest  diver- 
sions of  the  socialist  is  to  forget  what  he  is  trying  to  do, 
and  go  "a-goat-getting" — to  cast  aside  his  own  philosophy 
for  a  while  and  substitute  abuse  of  capitalists  for  judg- 
ment of  capitalism.  Sometimes  he  tangles  up  judgment 
and  abuse  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  worth  while  to 
disentangle  them.  Among  the  favorite  charges  of  socialists 
against  the  present  system,  for  instance,  is  that  it  sup- 
ports a  set  of  parasites,  that  capitalists  perform  no 
useful  function  in  society,  that  they  live  by  exploiting 
the  labor  of  the  working  class.  In  fact,  the  capitalist  is 
charged  with  being  a  robber  and  capitalism  branded  as 
a  system  of  robbery.  To  many  persons  this  charge  is  an 
absurdity,  to  others  it  is  a  puzzle,  and  to  still  others  it  is 
self --evident.  Such  violent  conflict  of  opinion  suggests 
that  something  or  other  is  warping  men's  judgment  on 
this  question,  and  indeed  the  truth  is  that  several  things 
are  warping  it.  Feelings  and  habits  of  thought  are  both 
involved,  but  the  main  difficulty  is  a  subtle  scholastic  one 
— the  issue  in  fact  is  largely  verbal.  That  is  one  reason 
why  people  feel  so  strongly  about  it,  for  no  issues  are 
more  bitterly  contested  among  men  than  verbal  ones. 

There  may  be  a  sense  in  which  the  capitalist  is  a  robber 
and  also  a  sense  in  which  he  is  the  exact  opposite  of  a 
robber.  It  depends  upon  what  is  meant  by  a  robber.  If 
we  rob  the  issue  of  the  verbal  obscurity  which  besets  it, 
some  interesting  aspects  of  the  capitalist's  real  relation 
to  society  are  revealed. 

53 


54     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Now  just  what  is  meant  by  a  robber?  Is  it  a  person 
who  takes  what  belongs  to  another  by  illegal  means? 
This  is  th-e  definition  most  commonly  implied  by  the  word. 
But  evidently  in  this  sense  the  capitalist  is  not  a  robber. 
It  is  not  illegal  to  be  a  capitalist.  Literally  then  the 
capitalist  is  not  a  robber.  But,  of  course,  it  is  not  the 
name  which  is  applied  to  a  thing,  but  the  characteristics 
which  it  possesses,  that  makes  it  of  interest  to  men,  and 
if  we  forget  this  we  shall  fall  into  the  very  confusion 
which  we  are  trying  to  avoid.  Is  it  not  fair  to  ask  then 
whether  the  capitalist  does  not  share  some  essential 
characteristic  of  the  robber;  not  some  characteristic 
which  all  men  share  with  him,  such  as  possessing  two 
eyes,  a  nose  and  a  mouth,  but  some  feature  essentially 
related  to  him  in  his  capacity  as  a  public  malefactor? 

What  is  Meant  by  Earning?  For  instance  the  rob- 
ber takes  or  acquires  wealth  which  he  does  not  earn.  Can 
we  say  the  same  of  the  capitalist?  That  again  depends 
upon  what  we  mean  by  "earn,"  so  our  next  task  in  under- 
mining the  scholastics  of  this  question  is  to  seek  the  mean- 
ing of  that  word.  Does  earning  involve  active  labor, 
physical  or  mental?  Does  it  require  that  the  individual 
who  earns  wealth  shall  exert  actual  bodily  or  mental 
energy  as  a  condition  of  coming  into  possession  of  it? 
And  if  so,  must  the  energy  be  in  some  sort  of  proportion 
to  the  amount  of  wealth  received,  or  is  this  not  neces- 
sary? If  it  is,  how  are  we  to  measure  human  energy  in 
this  sense  and  equate  mental  with  physical  ?  How  much 
ditch-digging  for  instance  is  equal  to  the  energy  exerted 
by  James  Watt  in  developing  the  steam  engine?  If  we 
measure  earning  by  effort,  it  is  possible  to  answer  this 
question,  in  a  rough  way  at  least,  and  by  this  standard 
what  Watt  earned  was  not  more  and  quite  likely  was  less 
than  what  is  earned  by  an  average  ditch-digger  in  a  few 
years*  work. 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     55 

But  the  idea  of  earning  is  complex  and  there  is  another 
way  of  measuring  the  amount  a  person  rightfully  earns, 
namely  by  the  benefit  his  efforts  confer  on  society. 
Measured  by  this  standard,  the  amount  Watt  really 
earned  was  equal  to  the  life  labor  of  many  millions  of 
ditch-diggers,  for  wherever  steam  engines  serve,  or  will 
in  the  future  serve,  human  beings,  directly  or  indirectly, 
there  Watt  serves  them;  and  therefore  a  share  of  the 
earnings  of  every  engine  working  to-day,  or  in  the  future, 
is  rightfully  his.  Moreover  what  he  earned  by  inventing 
the  steam  engine  would  not  be  diminished  in  the  least 
had  the  inventing  of  it  been  no  more  than  a  pleasant 
pastime,  as  indeed  it  was,  in  part  at  least;  for  to  the 
inventor  inventing  is  an  enjoyable  occupation,  a  fascinat- 
ing recreation. 

There  is  a  third  way  of  measuring  what  a  man  earns 
by  his  efforts,  namely,  by  what  he  is  legally  able  to  get 
for  them;  and  measured  by  this  standard.  Watt  earned 
very  little,  and  most  great  inventors  earn  even  less  than 
Watt — less  perhaps  than  the  laziest  ditch-digger.  This 
is  nevertheless  the  measure  in  commonest  use  to-day,  and 
though  it  has  little  relation  to  the  other  means  of 
measurement  it  has  the  merit  of  definiteness — perhaps 
the  only  merit  it  does  have. 

Now  with  these  three  methods  of  measuring  what  a 
man  earns  more  or  less  vaguely  present  in  people's  minds 
it  is  no  wonder  that  there  is  disagreement  as  to  whether 
the  capitalist  earns  the  wealth  that  he  gets.  The  question 
evidently  admits  of  various  answers  according  to  the 
standard  of  measurement  used. 

Referring  to  the  pure  capitalist,  whose  income  is  due 
exclusively  to  what  he  owns,  it  is  obvious  that  if  we  use 
the  first  method  of  measurement  he  does  not  earn  what 
he  gets,  and  hence  shares  one  of  the  distinctive  character- 
istics of  a  robber.  If  we  use  the  third  method  of 
measurement  he  doe^  earn  what  he  gets,  and  hence  is  no 


56      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

robber  at  all.  And  if  we  use  the  second  method  of 
measurment  he  may  or  may  not  earn  it,  depending  upon 
whether  or  not  his  ownership  is  a  service  to  society.  Now 
this  last  question,  though  the  hardest,  is  yet  the  most  im- 
portant one  to  answer,  because  our  whole  object  is  to 
ascertain  how  society  may  be  served,  and  though  it 
is  most  aggravating  that  the  very  thing  we  need  most  to 
know  about  this  question  is  the  hardest  to  find  out,  yet 
it  is  so  much  like  what  we  meet  elsewhere  in  life  that 
we  probably  may  become  reconciled  to  it.  For  if  we 
measure  what  the  capitalist  earns  by  his  service  to 
society,  we  shall  be  down  to  the  solid  basis  of  utility  and 
can  depend  on  our  conclusions. 

How  the  Capitalist  Serves  Society.  And  right  here 
it  will  be  well  to  recall  just  what  we  mean  by  a  capitalist, 
and  I  will  ask  the  reader  to  refresh  his  memory  by  re- 
ferring to  the  distinction  made  on  page  43  in  the  last 
chapter.  The  man  we  are  talking  about  is  not  the  mere 
owner  of  capital,  neither  is  he  the  man  who  is  merely 
paid  for  owning  capital,  nor  does  it  matter  whether  he 
does  something  in  addition  to  owning  something  for  a 
living.  It  is  the  man  who  owns  for  a  living  in  so  pre- 
ponderating a  degree  that  he  gains,  economically,  more 
than  he  loses  by  the  system  (capitalism)  that  recognizes 
ownership  as  a  legal  means  of  income. 

If  the  capitalist  is  useful  it  must  be  because  he 
performs  a  useful  function  in  society;  but  can  we  say 
that  a  person  who  does  nothing  performs  a  function  at  all 
— or  is  owning  something  one  way  of  doing  something? 
We  can  easily  get  into  more  scholastics  on  such  a 
question,  but  let  us  avoid  it  by  showing  that  the  pure 
capitalist,  though  he  may  not  perform  labor  that  is 
measurable  in  units  of  effort,  yet  is  a  factor  in  affecting 
the  welfare  of  society,  just  as  the  buildings  in  a  city, 
although  they  sustain  no  form  of  actual  activity,  yet  affect 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     57 

the  life  of  the  community  no  less  than  the  active  elements 
thereof. 

The  function  of  the  capitalist,  per  se,  is  not  to  work 
himself,  but  to  determine  by  his  inclination  what  kind 
of  work  others  shall  do.  It  is  often  said  that  such  and 
such  a  capitalist  built  this  railroad  or  that  hotel,  and  this 
way  of  using  words  misleads  us  into  thinking  that  he  had 
some  active  part  in  it.  Of  course,  if  he  took  active  part 
in  planning  the  enterprise  he  was  one  of  the  builders, 
just  as  the  architect  was,  but  not  in  his  capacity  as  a 
capitalist  pure  and  simple.  The  capitalist  simply  invests. 
He  decides  or  consents  to  own  one  kind  of  property 
rather  than  another,  and  this  decision  affects  the  activity 
of  others,  sometimes  of  many  others.  The  capitalist 
does  not  actually  build  railroads  or  hotels  although 
we  say  he  does.  If  he  did,  the  architects,  engineers, 
mechanics,  laborers,  etc.,  who  receive  the  money  which 
represents  his  investment  would  be  superfluous — indeed 
very  much  in  the  way.  But  if  his  inclination  happens 
to  be  that  a  hotel  shall  be  built  rather  than  a  railroad 
this  inclination  determines  that  the  aforesaid  architects, 
engineers,  laborers,  etc.,  or  others  of  their  ilk  shall  ex- 
pend their  efforts  in  building  a  hotel  instead  of  a  railroad. 
If  he  is  disposed  to  have  a  railroad,  then  they  work  at 
that,  and  so  with  other  things.  Thus  the  function  of  the 
capitalist  in  society  is  a  very  vital  one.  In  his  capacity 
as  a  capitalist  he  does  nothing,  but  he  has  preferences  as 
to  what  he  shall  own,  and  these  preferences  determine 
what  kinds  of  things  others  shall  do. 

A  society  largely  dominated  by  capitalists  then  (as  ours 
is)  is  one  the  productive  activities  of  which  are  in  that 
degree  determined  by  the  preferences  of  capitalists  seek- 
ing the  largest  possible  return  on  their  investment,  and 
as  most  of  the  activities  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  countries  in  a  like  stage  of  development,  are 
of   a  productive   nature,   it   comes  about   that   a  very 


68      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

considerable  and  increasing  part  of  such  activities  are 
directed  to  doing"  what  will  most  enrich  the  capitalists  of 
the  country,  or  rather  what  they  think  will  most  enrich 
them. 

Private  and  Public  Functions.  Now  productive  ac- 
tivities are  of  two  kinds:  either  they  are  private — con- 
cerned with  satisfying  the  desires  of  a  private  individual 
or  family,  or  they  are  public — concerned  with  satisfying 
the  desires  of  the  public  in  general,  or  some  local  section 
of  it.  A  person's  activities  in  dressing,  washing  and  feed- 
ing himself,  brushing  his  teeth  or  his  shoes  are  examples 
of  the  performance  of  private  functions.  They  do  not 
concern  the  public  except  perhaps  in  a  remote  and  in- 
direct way,  and  the  welfare  of  other  persons  is  not 
materially  affected  by  them.  Similar  services  performed 
for  another,  as  in  the  case  of  a  valet  or  nurse,  are  also 
private  if  confined  to  a  single  individual  or  family.  A 
person's  activities  in  assisting  to  operate  a  railroad^  mine 
or  factory,  run  a  store,  or  a  farm,  the  produce  of  which 
is  consumed  by  the  public  or  some  considerable  part  of 
it,  are  examples  of  the  performance  of  a  public  function. 
These  activities  concern  the  public  because  public  welfare 
or  happiness  is  likely  to  be  materially  affected  for  the 
better  or  worse  by  the  manner  in  which  they  are  carried 
on.  A  few  kinds  of  activities  of  an  intermediate  kind 
may  be  cited,  but  hair-splitting  aside,  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  men's  productive  activities  can  be  quite  readily 
classified  as  either  private  or  public. 

This  classification  will  help  us  to  understand  the  true 
relation  of  capitalism  to  robbery,  because  it  will  make 
quite  plain  how  the  capitalist  is  able  to  get  wealth  with- 
out working  for  it.  We  have  seen  that  a  pure  capitalist 
affects  society  and  acquires  wealth,  not  by  indulging  in 
any  activity  of  his  own,  but  by  determining  what  kinds 
of  activity  others  shair  indulge  in.     Now  the  principal 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     59 

kind  of  productive  activity  through  which  he  can  thus 
acquire  wealth  is  public  activity.  In  other  words,  his 
preferences  as  a  capitalist  cause  other  men  to  perform 
public  functions,  and  these  are  of  service  to  the  public. 
Money  expended  for  private  activities  yields  no  return. 
It  tends  to  impoverish  rather  than  enrich  men.  Of  course 
if  the  capitalist  is  a  rich  man  he  can,  and  probably  will, 
have  preferences  which  will  direct  the  activities  of  quite 
a  few  persons  to  the  performance  of  private  functions 
for  his  benefit.  His  convenience  and  service  will  probably 
absorb  the  labor  of  servants  and  flunkies  of  various 
kinds ;  but  it  is  not  as  a  capitalist  that  he  determines  their 
activities ;  it  is  as  a  rich  man,  and  such  activities  do  not 
-tend  to  enrich  him — quite  the  contrary.  They  are  not 
an  investment ;  they  are  a  luxury  which  his  investments 
enable  him  to  afford.  And  right  here  perhaps  is  the  best 
place  to  point  out  why  orthodox  political  economy  cannot 
perceive  anything  robber-like  in  the  capitalist. 

.  Abstinence.  It  is,  or  used  to  be,  quite  usual  for 
economists  to  explain  th-e  return  received  by  the  capitalist 
on  his  investment  as  the  reward  of  abstinence.  They 
mean  by  this  that  in  spending  his  money  for  stocks  or 
bonds  he  is  abstaining  from  the  luxuries  he  might  have 
spent  it  for,  that  in  causing  men  to  perform  public  func- 
tions through  investment  he  is  failing  to  receive  the 
personal  service  he  might  have  purchased  with  the  same 
money.  The  more  a  man  spends  for  securities  the  less 
he  has  to  spend  for  servants  or  other  indulgences — or  at 
any  rate  the  less  he  has  to  spend  immediately.  In  this 
way  of  looking  at  the  matter  the  capitalist  certainly  bears 
little  resemblance  to  a  robber.  He  is  a  sort  of  martyr 
practicing  abstinence  for  the  benefit  of  society,  and  his 
profit  is  merely  the  reward  of  virtue — the  virtue  of  self- 
deniaL 

But  this  impression  is  secured  by  a  common  scholastic 


60     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

trick — the  undetected  use  of  a  popular  word  in  a  technical 
sense.  All  the  economist  means  by  abstinence  is  a  prefer- 
ence for  profit  over  immediate  consumable  goods.  It  is 
true  that  when  the  capitalist  devotes  his  income  to  invest- 
ment he  in  that  degree  abstains  from  spending  his 
money  on  consumable  goods,  but  it  is  equally  true  that 
when  he  devotes  his  income  to  spending  he  in  that  de- 
gree abstains  from  receiving  profit.  He  cannot  eat  his 
cake  and  have  it  too ;  so  he  is  bound  to  abstain  in  one 
way  or  the  other,  and  normally  he  will  choose  the  kind 
of  abstinence  he  likes  the  best.  And  if  his  preference 
causes  him  to  abstain  from  spending  rather  than  from 
profit,  it  is  hard  to  see  why  he  is  practicing  self-denial 
more  than  if  it  causes  him  to  abstain  from  profit  rather 
than  from  spending.  He  cannot  avoid  abstemiousness 
of  one  sort  or  the  other,  and  the  practice  of  what  can- 
not be  avoided  can  hardly  be  classed  as  a  virtue. 

This  concept  of  the  reward  of  the  capitalist  then  rep- 
resents him  as  a  person  who  is  rewarded  by  society  for 
abstaining  from  what  he  prefers  to  abstain  from.  The 
very  rich  man  is  the  great  abstainer.  The  very  poor 
man  practices  no  abstinence  whatever,  except  of 
course  what  his  poverty  imposes  on  him.  As  we  look 
about  the  world  and  observe  the  habits  of  the  rich  and 
poor  we  perceive  that  this  proposition,  though  true,  is 
not  interesting,  except  to  the  academic  mind.  Indeed, 
it  is  of  such  meager  interest  as  a  justification  of  mod- 
ern capitalism  that,  outside  of  academic  circles,  little 
is  now  heard  of  it.  The  current  explanation  of  the 
reward  of  the  capitalist  is  no  longer  found  in  his  pre- 
eminent abstinence,  great  though  it  be.  It  is  found  in 
his  preeminent  ability. 

Ability.  Thus  it  is  contended  by  many  economists 
that  what  we  have  called  payment  for  ownership  is  really 
payment  for  ability.     They  have  even  coined  the  term 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     61 

"rent  of  ability"  to  express  this  award.  Of  course,  in 
one  sense  they  cannot  be  mistaken  in  this  view.  If  a 
man  receives  any  payment  it  proves  he  is  able  to  receive 
it,  because  no  one  can  do  what  he  is  not  able  to  do.  This 
view  of  the  matter,  however,  simmers  down  to  saying 
that  a  man  who  receives  a  payment  receives  it,  and  would 
make  everybody's  income  a  rent  of  ability — ability  to  get 
what  he  gets. 

What  the  economists  must  mean,  if  they  mean  any- 
thing reasonable,  however,  is  that  property-income  is  the 
rent  of  ability — or  unusual  ability — to  serve  the  public 
in  some  way ;  and  yet  I  should  like  to  see  any  man,  how- 
ever able  in  this  sense,  get  the  income  from  a  thousand 
dollar  bond  the  ownership  of  which  was  vested  in  some 
one  else.  No;  payment  of  dividends  on  stocks,  interest 
or  bonds,  rent  of  houses  and  lands,  and  so  on,  goes  to 
him  who  owns  these  things,  whether  idiot  or  sage.  If  you 
do  not  think  this  is  so,  try  to  convince  some  bank  treasurer 
to  the  contrary.  Try  to  show  him,  for  instance,  that  he 
should  issue  his  semi-annual  dividends,  not  according  to 
stock  ownership,  but  according  to  ability  in  the  public 
service.  If  you  succeed  you  will  receive  a  large  rent  for 
your  ability  to  convince,  for  it  will  certainly  be  an  un- 
usual one. 

I  do  not  wish  to  assert  however  that  men  do  not  some- 
times become  possessed  of  large  capital  through  their 
preeminent  intellectual  ability  in  the  service  of  the 
public.  This  occasionally  happens,  but  it  is  a  far  cry 
from  this  to  the  proposition  that  he  who  serves  the  public 
most  efficiently  receives  the  most  income.  The  reverse 
of  this  proposition  would  certainly  be  as  near  the  truth. 
He  who  would  acquire  a  large  income  must  cultivate 
acquisitive  efficiency,  which  is  quite  distinct  from  pro- 
ductive efficiency. 

When  the  term  "rent  of  ability"  is  confined  to  the 
award  of  the  working  capitalist,  the  promoter  or  en- 


62      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

trepreneur,  it  seems  to  have  a  confused  sort  of  justifica- 
tion, and  yet  the  only  measure  of  ability  generally 
available  is  the  amount  gained  (or  lost),  and  this  method 
of  measurement,  as  already  shown,  begs  the  question 
of  ability.  It  is  true  that  when  public  functions  are  left 
to  be  performed  by  private  parties,  a  chaotic  condition 
of  things  results  which  calls  for  the  exercise  of  a  peculiar 
kind  of  enterprise  and  ability — the  ability  to  bring  order 
out  of  chaos  in  the  industrial  and  commercial  world.  The 
entrepreneur  sometimes  has  this  ability  and  uses  it  in  the 
public  service  as  well  as  his  own,  and  in  so  far  as  his 
reward  is  in  proportion  to  his  exercise  of  it,  he  is  paid 
for  doing  and  not  for  owning.  But  under  socialism  there 
will  be  no  call  for  this  peculiar  ability,  because,  the  chaos 
of  capitalism  having  been  abolished,  there  will  be  no  need 
of  bringing  order  out  of  it. 

It  is  entirely  natural  that  a  man  who  has  become  rich 
and  successful  should  attribute  his  success  to  his  own 
ability,  and  he  usually  does ;  just  as  a  man  who  has  failed 
attributes  his  failure  to  luck,  to  the  wickedness  of  his 
associates,  or  to  something  for  which  he  is  not  at  fault. 
This  is  human  nature.  All  of  us  like  to  blame  our 
successes  on  ourselves  and  our  failures  on  some  one  else. 
You  see  ability  itself  is,  after  all,  a  matter  of  luck,  for 
no  man  can  determine  what  he  is  born  to.  He  cannot 
even  determine  that  he  shall  be  born  with  the  ability  to 
acquire  ability.  As  a  matter  of  fact  success  or  failure 
depend  partly  on  the  luck  of  possessing  ability  or  the 
lack  of  it,  and  partly  on  the  common  or  garden  variety 
of  luck.  The  game  of  life  depends  more  on  skillful  play 
than  roulette,  and  more  on  luck  than  chess.  It  is  more 
like  whist,  which  depends  somewhat  on  both,  and  though 
it  would  take  too  much  time  to  present  the  evidence,  I 
think,  if  presented,  it  would  show  that,  like  whist,  it 
depends  more  on  luck  than  on  skill.  This  is  one  reason 
why  the  world  needs  a  system  which  will  more  nearly 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     63 

equalize  the  opportunities  under  which  the  game  of  life 
is  played,  so  that  it  will  resemble  chess ;  so  that  ability  to 
serve,  as  measured  by  success  in  serving,  will  mean 
success  in  life. 

But  the  important  thing  is  not  whether  the  capitalist 
is  so  preeminently  abstemious  or  able  as  the  economist 
pictures  him.  That  would  not  mean  that  he  might  not 
have  the  characteristics  of  a  robber.  We  might  call  a 
robber  one  who  abstains  from  the  satisfaction  of  being 
honest,  or  who  has  the  ability  to  make  dishonesty  pay. 
The  important  thing  is  whether  the  capitalist  in  causing 
men  to  perform  public  functions  is  or  is  not  conferring 
a  benefit  on  society ;  and  it  seems  quite  evident  that  even 
the  socialist  must  admit  that  he  is.  The  admission,  how- 
ever, involves  some  qualifications,  which  are  the  most 
interesting  things  about  it. 

Present  Division  of  Control  of  Public  Functions. 
In  countries  like  the  United  States  all  public  functions 
are  not  determined  by  the  desire  of  capitalists  for  profit. 
The  legislative,  executive  and  judicial  departments  of 
government,  the  public  defense,  the  carrying  of  the  mails, 
the  lighthouse  service  and  many  other  public  functions 
are  not  operated  by  capitalists.  These  functions  are  per- 
formed by  publicly  paid  officers  in  the  exclusive  interest 
of  the  public.  They  are  determined  by  the  preferences, 
not  of  capitalists,  but  of  the  public  as  reflected  by  the 
preferences  of  their  representatives  in  Congress.  They 
are  publicly  operated  public  functions.  The  control  of 
the  capitalist  is  confined  to  other  public  functions, 
generally  of  an  economic  nature — mining,  manufacturing, 
transportation,  etc.  That  is,  the  capitalist  controls  the 
performance  of  those  public  functions  only  which  the 
public  does  not  perform  for  itself,  and  hence  his  exist- 
ence as  a  capitalist  depends  upon  the  neglect  of  the  public 
to  perform  its  own  functions — to  attend  to  its  own 


64      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

affairs;  and  as  these  affairs  neglected  by  the  public 
include  very  vital  ones,  it  is  lucky  for  the  public  that 
private  provision  for  attending  to  them  is  made,  and  if 
the  men  who  make  it  are  robbers  they  are  a  much  needed 
kind  of  robber  who  use  public  service  as  a  means  of 
robbery. 

Thus  from  a  new  viewpoint  we  are  brought  again  to 
the  issue  of  whether  it  is  best  for  the  public  to  attend  to 
its  own  business  or  to  ''let  George  do  it,"  and  this  issue 
like  all  others  can  only  be  settled  by  an  appeal  to  the  sum 
of  the  evidence.  In  other  words,  we  are  led  once  more 
to  consider  whether  capitalism  as  a  means  of  carrying  on 
public  functions  is  more  useful  than  socialism,  for  the 
resemblance  of  a  capitalist  to  a  robber  depends  upon  the 
decision  of  this  issue.  Under  capitalism  the  capitalist  is 
a  necessity,  and  this  certainly  is  a  characteristic  distin- 
guishing him  sharply  from  a  robber.  Under  socialism  on 
the  other  hand  he  would  be  non-existent,  and  non- 
existence is  a  characteristic  which  robbers  ought  to  have 
but  have  not.  So  that,  judged  in  this  way,  the  capitalist 
has  no  resemblance  to  a  robber  either  under  capitalism 
or  socialism. 

Necessity  of  Capitalists.  It  thus  appears  that  while 
the  capitalist  resembles  the  robber  in  that  he  lives  upon 
the  labor  of  others,  he  differs  from  him  in  that,  under  a 
system  in  which  the  public  neglects  to  attend  to  its  own 
functions,  he  is  a  benefactor  even  to  those  upon  whose 
labor  he  lives.  The  indirect  effect  of  his  inclination  to 
live  upon  the  labor  of  others  is  the  performance  of  vital 
public  functions.  Imagine  what  would  happen  to  this 
country  and  to  the  workers  in  it  if  the  capitalists  of  the 
United  States  should  suddenly  withdraw  from  business 
— should  cease  to  perform  their  function  of  determining 
what  the  wage-workers  should  work  at — and  no  other 
mode  of  determination  should  be  substituted.    Obviously 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     65 

the  country  would  be  in  the  position  of  an  infant 
abandoned  by  its  parents  in  the  wilderness.  It  would 
cease  to  exist  as  a  nation.  It  would  die  of  starvation.  A 
nation  in  the  capitalist  stage  is  in  fact  like  a  child  in  that 
its  powers  are  undeveloped.  It  cannot  take  care  of  itself. 
It  can,  like  a  child  beginning  to  toddle,  perform  a  few 
essential  functions,  but  not  enough  to  sustain  its  life.  It 
is  as  dependent  upon  its  capitalists  as  the  child  is  de- 
pendent upon  its  parents.  But  the  dependence  is  not  of 
the  same  character.  The  capitalist  serves  the  public, 
not  as  the  father  serves  his  child,  for  the  love  he  bears 
it,.but  rather  as  the  farmer  serves  his  milch  cow,  for  the 
love  he  bears  good  milking.  Capitalism  indeed  is  an 
extreme  form  of  paternalism,  albeit  more  farmerly  than 
fatherly.  The  United  States  is  as  dependent  upon  its 
capitalists,  the  little  fathers  and  mothers  of  its  economic 
life,  as  a  child  is  dependent  upon  its  parents,  and  must 
remain  so  until  it  has  matured  its  own  economic  func- 
tions. The  stage  of  economic  maturity  is  represented  by 
socialism,  a  system  under  which  the  nation  will  depend 
upon  itself,  stand  upon  its  own  feet  and  be  self -directing 
— for  the  first  time  free  from  paternalism.  The  notion 
so  generally  prevailing  that  socialism  is  paternalism 
while  capitalism  is  not,  is  thus  the  exact  reverse  of  the 
truth.  Socialism  is  industrial  democracy — it  is  economic 
self-government — and  self-government  can  no  more  be 
paternal  government  than  a  man  can  be  his  own  father. 
It  is  capitalism — industrial  oligarchy — which  is  paternal- 
istic, and  whoever  is  opposed  to  the  genus  paternalism 
must  be  opposed  to  its  species  capitalism. 

Risk.  Among  the  many  paternal  functions  of  the 
capitalist  there  is  one  classed  by  economists  with  absti- 
nence and  ability  as  a  justification  for  his  income,  namely, 
the  risk  involved  in  the  process  of  investment.  This  risk 
is  real — as  real  if  not  as  great  as  the  risk  run  by  the 


66      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

robber  in  the  process  of  robbery.  It  is  also  assumed  from 
the  same  motive,  to  wit,  self-interest.  But  here  the 
resemblance  ceases.  The  risk  assumed  by  the  robber 
serves  no  public  function ;  that  assumed  by  the  capitalist 
does.  While  the  public  refuses  to  assume  the  risk  itself 
those  who  do  assume  it  perform  a  useful  public  service, 
and  if  the  premium  which  the  public  pays  is  excessive 
it  is  no  more  than  individuals  pay  for  similar  neglect  of 
their  own  affairs ;  for  it  is  as  generally  true  of  nations  as 
of  individuals  that  they  will  find  their  business  best 
attended  to  if  they  attend  to  it  themselves.  The  risk 
assumed  by  the  capitalist  nevertheless  is  a  real  public 
service.  It  is  part  of  the  justification  for  property- 
income  per  se,  whereas  the  abstinence  and  ability  of  the 
capitalist  are  not. 

But  there  is  another  aspect  of  the  relation  between  the 
capitalist  and  the  robber  more  enlightening  perhaps  than 
any  yet  considered.  After  what  we  have  just  said  about 
the  necessity  of  the  capitalist  it  will  be  delightfully 
paradoxical  to  point  out  that  he  resembles  the  robber  in 
being  superfluous. 

Superfluousness  of  Capitalists.  That  the  robber  is 
superfluous  everyone  will  concede.  That  the  capitalist  is 
superfluous  is  conceded  by  those  stanch  supporters  of 
capitalism,  the  orthodox  economists.  In  any  orthodox 
text  book  of  political  economy  you  will  find  the  statement, 
or  some  equivalent  of  the  statement,  that  the  only  es- 
sentials of  production  are  land,  labor  and  capital.  If 
these  are  the  only  essentials,  all  other  things  are  non- 
essentials. Therefore  capitalists  are  non-essentials — for 
capitalists  are  not  capital,  much  less  are  they  land  or 
labor.  It  is  commonly  asserted  that  land  and  capital  are 
entitled  to  their  reward,  because  they  are  as  much  factors 
in  production  as  labor.  This  assertion  may  be  true,  but 
the  trouble  is  that  they  are  so  constituted  as  to  be  inca- 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     67 

pable  of  receiving  any  reward.  A  ten  acre  lot  was  never 
offered  $ioo  a  year  to  grow  corn,  neither  does  anyone 
ever  approach  a  locomotive  with  an  offer  of  fifty  dollars 
a  week  to  haul  freight.  The  reward  of  land  and  capital 
is  always  vicarious.  It  is  necessary  to  bring  in  some 
non-essential  of  production  in  the  form  of  a  land  holder 
or  a  capitalist  to  act  as  a  receiver  for  what  the  real 
essentials  are  incapable  of  receiving.  No  such  system 
of  deputation  is  required  in  the  case  of  labor.  Land  can 
exist  without  landlords  and  capital  without  capitalists, 
but  labor  cannot  exist  without  laborers.  Landlords  and 
capitalists  are  non-essentials  of  production — their  pay- 
ment is  not  for  doing  but  for  owning  things.  Laborers 
are  essentials  of  production — their  payment  is  for  doing 
things.  Labor,  in  fact,  is  the  only  essential  of  produc- 
tion capable  of  receiving  a  reward  for  its  part  in  pro- 
ducing. Land  and  capital  require  no  reward,  never  re- 
ceive any,  and  could  not  accept  it  if  offered. 

Landlords  and  capitalists  are  necessary  to  production 
only  under  artificial  institutions  that  make  them  so. 
Laborers  are  necessary  under  any  system  devisable.  It 
is  said  that  in  certain  regions  of  Asia  custom  requires 
that  no  enterprise  shall  be  inaugurated  without  the  bless- 
ing of  a  lama  or  Buddhist  priest,  who  receives  a  fee  for 
his  contribution  to  the  success  of  the  undertaking.  In 
those  regions  the  lama  blesses  things  for  a  living  just  as 
the  capitalist  owns  things  for  a  living.  Under  the  system 
there  obtaining  he  is  as  essential  a  factor  of  production 
as  a  capitalist  under  the  system  of  capitalism.  In  the 
one  case  as  in  the  other  it  is  the  peculiar  institution  that 
custom  has  developed,  not  the  necessities  of  production, 
that  have  converted  a  non-essential  into  an  essential. 
Under  the  proper  system  of  industry,  living  in  the  same 
town  occupied  by  an  industrial  establishment  might  en- 
title properly  qualified  persons  to  receive  payment  from 
its  treasury,  for  a  priori,  it  is  as  reasonable  to  pay  a  man 


68      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

for  a  spacial  relation  like  this,  as  for  a  legal  relation 
like  ownership. 

Capitalists  then  resemble  robbers  in  being  superfluous. 
It  is  true  they  are  not  superfluous  under  capitalism  any 
more  than  kings  are  superfluous  under  monarchy  or  slave 
holders  under  slavery,  but  they  are  superfluous  under  a 
system  of  production  which  eliminates  all  non-essential 
factors.  And  after  all,  why  should  a  system  of  produc- 
tion include  any  non-essentials  any  more  than  a  machine 
should  be  encumbered  with  superfluous  parts?  Such  a 
system  surely  must  be  imperfect.  It  cannot  be  stripped 
down  to  its  most  efficient  terms.  A  system  of  industry 
which  permits  a  large  fraction  of  its  product  to  leak 
into  the  hands  of  non-essential  elements,  as  capitalism 
does,  certainly  cannot  be  considered  efficient,  except 
through  some  conception  of  efficiency  which  itself  is 
leaky. 

The  Most  Useful  Aspect  of  Capitalism.  We  have 
discussed  a  number  of  resemblances  and  divergences 
between  the  capitalist  and  the  robber,  each  having  a 
value  in  throwing  light  upon  the  true  nature  of  capital- 
ism. It  remains  to  point  out  a  divergence  which  reveals 
the  capitalist,  particularly  the  great  capitalist,  in  his 
most  useful  relation  to  the  community;  and  it  is  a  very 
useful  relation — as  useful  as  the  robber's  is  harmful.  I 
refer  to  his  value  as  a  teacher.  Of  all  his  paternal  func- 
tions this  is  the  most  important.  To  show  plainly  this 
aspect  of  the  capitalist's  place  in  the  community  it  will 
be  best  to  point  out  some  features  of  the  development  of 
a  closely  related  form  of  paternalism — the  institution  of 
monarchy. 

Kings  as  Teachers.  In  primitive  times  there  existed 
no  such  thing  as  political  government  among  men.  '  The 
human  animal  was  as  individualistic  as  his  brute  neigh- 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     69 

bors,  the  bear  and  the  wild  cat.  This  was  the  age  of 
anarchy.  This  stage  was  followed  by  one  in  which  men 
associated  together  in  larger  family  aggregates  or  in 
tribes,  yielding  a  limited  obedience  to  a  patriarch  or  chief 
whose  office  was  generally  hereditary.  By  tribal  alli- 
ances larger  aggregates  were  formed  headed  by  a  prin- 
cipal chief,  and  by  like  stages  petty  nations  and  kings 
innumerable  were  developed,  each  seeking  its  own  inter- 
est and  fighting  with  its  neighbors  in  the  effort  to  achieve 
it.  In  these  fights  the  interests  of  the  kings  generally 
prevailed  over  that  of  their  kingdoms,  and  this  relation 
between  kings  and  kingdoms  has  survived  to  this  day. 
In  the  process  of  wars  and  alliances  little  kingdoms  were 
swallowed  up  in  big  ones,  petty  kings  became  the  sub- 
jects of  great  kings,  huge  dynasties  arose — and  most  of 
them  fell — ^until  the  institution  of  monarchy  as  we  know 
it  to-day  was  evolved;  the  rule  of  the  game  being  that 
a  king  is  entitled  to  rule  his  people  and  pass  the  rule  on 
to  his  children  until  some  one  comes  along  with  ability 
enough  to  take  his  power  away  from  him;  in  which 
event  the  job  of  ruling  is  taken  over  by  the  newcomer, 
another  dynasty  is  started,  and  in  turn  becomes  heredi- 
tary. 

In  order  to  overcome  their  adversaries  and  extend 
their  power  it  was  necessary  for  kings  to  organize  the 
people  of  their  kingdoms,  to  make  them  stop  fighting 
one  another  and  cooperate  in  the  common  purpose  of 
serving  the  king's  will  and  augmenting  his  power.  Thus 
the  evolution  of  monarchy  and  government  proceeded 
together,  and  thus  out  of  anarchy  arose  the  complex 
governments  of  modern  monarchies  with  their  highly  de- 
veloped machinery  of  political  cooperation.  In  the 
development  of  this  machinery  kings  and  their  ministers 
played  the  principal  parts,  because  both  their  interest  and 
their  power  was  paramount. 

The  institution  of  monarchy  was  a  great  improvement 


70      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

over  that  of  anarchy  from  which  it  was  thus  gradually 
evolved.  The  organization  of  a  community  into  a  body 
politic,  even  in  the  service  of  a  king,  was  a  much  better 
way  of  promoting  happiness  than  the  "each  for  himself 
and  the  devil  take  him  who  would  serve  his  fellow  men," 
as  in  the  cave  man  stage  of  existence.  Under  monarchy 
with  all  its  iniquities  a  man's  life,  liberty  and  property 
were  far  safer  than  when  at  the  mercy  of  any  neighbor 
with  the  power  and  inclination  to  assail  them ;  and  with 
all  its  wars  there  was  far  more  peace  than  when  each 
man's  hand  was  against  his  neighbor.  It  is  true  these 
benefits  were  merely  incidental  to  the  service  of  the  king 
and  his  family  and  court.  The  king  in  governing  his 
people  and  imposing  discipline  upon  them  was  perform- 
ing a  useful  public  function,  but  its  utility  to  the  people 
was  merely  a  by-product  of  its  utility  to  him.  The 
king's  service  to  the  people  was  merely  an  incident  of 
his  service  to  himself.  He  performed  a  public  function 
as  a  by-process  of  private  self-seeking. 

Now  in  the  life  of  the  more  advanced  and  intelligent 
monarchies  there  comes  a  time  when  this  by-process 
becomes  the  principal  process.  "When  in  the  course  of 
human  events"  experience  has  taught  people  the  benefit 
of  government  in  the  service  of  kings,  it  tends  in  intel- 
ligent communities  to  go  further  and  suggest  to  them 
the  benefit  of  government  in  their  own  service.  In  other 
words,  when  kings  have  once  taught  a  people  how  to 
run  the  machinery  of  government  for  kings,  they  are 
likely  to  discover  that  the  people  have  been  taught  to 
run  it  for  themselves,  and  in  time  will  get  around  to 
doing  it,  and  thus  render  kings  superfluous.  Thus  mon- 
archy tends  to  develop  into  democracy,  thus  public  politi- 
cal functions  come  to  be  performed  as  public  functions 
instead  of  as  by-processes  of  private  power  seeking,. thus 
the  people  learn  to  attend  to  their  own  political  business 
instead  of  letting  power  seekers  attend  to  it  for  them. 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     71 

■  — ^ 

Sometimes  the  change  from  monarchy  to  democracy 
takes  place  suddenly  as  in  our  own  revolution  or  in  that 
of  France.  More  frequently  it  occurs  gradually  by  the 
slow  process  of  encroachment  of  the  public  control  of 
government  upon  the  power  of  the  monarch,  as  in  the 
case  of  most  of  the  countries  of  Europe,  best  illustrated 
by  the  political  history  of  England,  where  this  encroach- 
ment has  proceeded  further  than  in  other  monarchies. 
But  in  all  cases  the  process  has  been  essentially  the  same. 
Kings  in  the  process  of  learning  how  to  govern  their 
people  have  taught  the  people  how  to  govern  themselves, 
and  thus  by  their  service  as  teachers  have  tended  more 
and  more  to  destroy  their  own  functions,  until  when  the 
stage  of  democracy  or  self-government  is  reached  they 
become  entirely  superfluous  and  disappear  altogether  as 
in  France,  or  remain  mere  symbols — a  sort  of  rudi- 
mentary organ  or  vermiform  appendix  to  government — ^ 
as  in  England. 

Capitalists  as  Teachers.  Now  the  evolution  of  the 
economic  institutions  of  the  human  race  proceeds  along 
lines  parallel  to  that  of  its  political  institutions,  only  it 
has  not  yet  proceeded  so  far.  The  production  of  wealth 
in  primitive  communities  is  originally  purely  individual- 
istic. It  is  industrial  anarchy.  Each  family  produces 
for  itself.  Gradually  a  division  of  labor  evolves  special- 
ists in  production,  each  working  for  himself  without 
regard  to  the  operations  of  others.  Later  workers  in 
special  lines  tend  to  get  together,  especially  in  the  cities, 
a  rude  cooperation  begins,  the  relations  of  master, 
journeyman  and  apprentice  appear,  until  with  the  com- 
ing of  the  age  of  machinery  the  master  class  develops  into 
the  capitalist  class.  Through  economic  wars  and  alli- 
ances essentially  similar  to  the  familiar  political  kind, 
larger  capitalists  arise  who  tend  to  swallow  the  business 
of  the  smaller  ones,  barons,  captains  and  kings  of  indus- 


72      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

try  evolve  of  various  degrees  of  power,  comparable  in 
practically  all  respects  to  the  barons,  kings  and  emperors 
whose  doings  fill  our  books  of  history;  and  not  inferior 
to  them  in  power  over  the  lives  of  the  people.  For  the 
kings  of  industry,  little  and  big,  having  raised  the  eco- 
nomic life  of  the  people  out  of  its  primitive  anarchy, 
having  imposed  economic  system  and  discipline  upon  the 
people,  proceed  to  control  the  organization  they  have 
created,  and  govern  the  economic  machinery  of  the  com- 
munity, not  of  course  primarily  for  the  communities' 
benefit,  but  as  an  incident  of  private  profit  seeking.  The 
great  capitalist  is  thus  an  accurate  counterpart  of  the 
monarch,  performing  public  functions  as  by-processes  of 
private  self-seeking,  and  it  is  through  no  faulty  analogy 
that  our  Rockefellers,  Carnegies,  Baers  and  Harrimans 
are  referred  to  as  oil  kings,  steel  kings,  coal  barons,  rail- 
road kings,  etc.  Their  power  over  the  life  of  the  people 
is  that  of  kings,  they  receive  the  homage  which  in  mon- 
archies is  accorded  kings,  like  kings  their  power  is  heredi- 
tary, and  their  dynasties  survive  or  perish  according  to 
their  ability  to  out-maneuver  their  rivals  and  opponents. 
The  Houses  of  Rockefeller  and  Morgan  are  established 
on  as  firm  a  basis  as  the  Houses  of  Hapsburg  or  Hohen- 
zollem — and  perhaps  a  little  more  so.  If  their  sub- 
jects are  somewhat  discontented  with  their  arbitrary 
exercise  of  power  it  is  no  more  than  can  be  said  of 
the  subjects  of  other  kings.  In  both  houses  the  reign 
of  John  the  Second  promises  to  be  at  least  as  beneficent, 
and  even  more  widely  extended,  than  that  of  John  the 
First. 

But  the  resemblance  between  capitalists  and  kings  ex- 
tends still  further.  In  economic  as  in  political  affairs 
the  ruler  of  the  people  is  also  their  teacher.  In  serving 
himself  he  serves  the  public  in  more  senses  than  one. 
Not  only  does  he  cause  the  performance  of  public  func- 
tions as  an  incident  of  his  money  making,  but  in  so 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER     73 

doing  he  teaches  the  people  how  to  perform  these  func- 
tions for  themselves.  Sometimes  he  does  this  in  his 
capacity  as  a  capitalist,  sometimes  perhaps  in  his  capacity 
as  an  organizer,  his  ownership  of  capital  providing  him 
with  the  opportunity.  Just  as  the  political  king  by  re- 
vealing to  the  people  the  value  of  political  organization 
as  a  means  to  personal  power  incidentally  reveals  to 
them  its  value  as  a  means  to  national  well  being,  so  the 
great  capitalist  by  revealing  to  the  people  the  value  of 
industrial  organization  as  a  means  to  private  profit,  inci- 
dentally reveals  to  them  its  value  as  a  means  to  public 
service.  And  just  as  the  king  by  teaching  the  people 
the  art  of  political  government  finally  renders  himself  a 
political  superfluity,  so  the  capitalist  by  teaching  them  the 
art  of  economic  government  will  finally  render  himself 
an  economic  superfluity. 

Thus  political  and  industrial  evolution  follow  the  same 
lines,  from  anarchy,  through  oligarchy  to  democracy. 
Essentially  the  same  process  which  develops  monarchy 
into  political  democracy  will  develop  capitalism  into  in- 
dustrial democracy  or  socialism.  The  great  value  of 
the  capitalist,  as  of  the  king,  is  as  a  teacher.  Through 
him  the  people  will  learn  to  operate  public  functions  as 
public  functions  and  not  as  by-processes  of  private  profit- 
seeking.  By  his  efforts  they  will  see  that  though  it  is 
well  to  have  capitalists  attend  to  the  public  business 
for  them,  it  is  even  better  for  the  public  to  attend  to  its 
business  for  itself. 

Need  of  Regulation  the  First  Lesson  Learned.     At 

the  present  day  we  are  living  in  an  interesting  stage  of 
economic  evolution  in  this  country.  It  is  the  stage  cor- 
responding to  that  in  which  absolute  monarchy  evolves 
into  constitutional  monarchy.  The  European  monarchies 
are  passing  through  this  stage  to-day,  England  having 
about  completed  it,  and  Turkey  just  begun  it.     Our  fore- 


74     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

fathers  in  this  country  skipped  this  stage  of  political 
evolution,  accomplishing  by  seven  years  of  war  what  it 
has  taken  England  seven  hundred  years  of  "regulation" 
to  accomplish.  We  are  not  going  to  follow  in  their 
footsteps  to  the  extent  of  skipping  entirely  the  corre- 
sponding stage  of  economic  evolution.  We  are  already 
well  launched  upon  a  policy  of  industrial  regulation  de- 
signed to  convert  our  system  of  economic  absolutism 
into  one  of  a  controlled,  constitutional,  or  limited  condi- 
tion. It  is  true  some  of  our  confused  leaders  are  at- 
tempting to  go  back  to  the  old  condition  of  economic 
anarchy.  They  would  establish  an  artificial  competition 
and  abolish  the  trusts.  A  good  many  indeed  would 
abolish  and  regulate  them  at  the  same  time.  But  the 
talk  of  abolition  is  now  for  political  purposes  exclu- 
sively. Few  really  take  it  seriously.  The  course  of 
economic  evolution  is  not  going  to  be  reversed.  We  shall 
continue  and  extend  our  "regulation"  until  we  have  ren- 
dered economic  kings  as  superfluous  as  political  ones.  In 
the  first  chapter  I  have  discussed  this  parallelism  between 
our  policy  of  regulation  and  the  European  policy  of 
constitutionalism.  Both  result  from  the  reaction  of  an 
intelligent  people  to  oligarchic  institutions.  Both  are 
highways  to  democarcy,  even  though  men's  love  of  make- 
shift and  muddle  render  them  needlessly  devious  and 
long. 

The  Most  Dangerous  Aspect  of  Capitalism.  There 
seems  only  one  force  capable  of  suspending  the  course  of 
this  evolution,  and  that  is  one  capable  of  suspending  the 
power  of  intelligence  in  dealing  with  it.  There  is  a 
genuine  danger  here,  because  the  same  system  which 
gives  our  class  of  major  capitalists  their  control  over  the 
activities  of  men  in  general  gives  them  control  over  their 
educational  activities.  It  is  all  a  question  of  how  they 
are  going  to  use  that  control.    Those  great  agencies  of 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER    75 

education,  the  press  and  the  universities,  are  almost  ex- 
clusively in  their  hands.  They  can  be  used  as  well  to 
miseducate  as  to  educate  the  people  and  their  leaders, 
and  in  industrial  affairs  they  are  largely  so  used.  True, 
it  is  a  prodigious  task  for  them  to  nullify  the  education 
furnished  by  the  actual  events  and  facts  of  industrial 
life,  but  they  can  accomplish  much  even  against  such 
opposition,  for,  within  limits,  they  can  control  what  facts 
and  events  shall  be  brought  to  public  notice  and  empha- 
size their  capitalistic  interpretation.  Needless  to  say, 
they  rather  consistently  do  this.  How  could  they  be 
expected  to  do  otherwise?  For  the  most  part  it  is  done 
honestly,  since  not  only  self-interest  but  the  traditional 
way  of  regarding  economic  institutions  sustains  them. 
Reason  alone  opposes  them,  and  reason  in  matters  like 
this  is  a  force  of  feeble  intensity.  It  is  only  its  per- 
sistence which  makes  it  formidable  and  causes  it  to  pre- 
vail in  the  end.  When  Thomas  Paine,  referring  to  the 
conversion  of  the  colonial  Whigs  from  the  support  of 
monarchy  to  that  of  democracy,  said  that  time  makes 
more  converts  than  reason,  he  was  merely  paying  a 
tribute  to  the  persistence  of  reason  in  time.  Time  alone 
makes  no  converts.  But  reason,  with  the  help  of  the 
events  which  time  brings  forth,  makes  them. 

Thus  the  greatest  danger  to  the  triumph  of  democracy 
is  not  the  control  of  our  industrial  oligarchs  over  the 
wealth  of  the  country,  but  over  its  education.  Happily 
this  control  is  not  complete.  The  public  through  the 
public  schools  and  libraries  and  state  universities  is,  in 
some  considerable  measure  at  least,  attending  to  that 
public  education  which  is  so  imperatively  and  vitally  its 
business,  to  the  extent  of  being  the  chief  instrument  of 
its  salvation.  Nowhere  is  the  extension  of  the  public 
control  of  public  functions  more  important  than  in  the 
realm  of  education,  for  plutocracy  is  more  valuable  as 
an  unconscious  than  as  a  conscious  teacher.     Particularly 


76      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

! 

to  leave  the  power  of  the  press  exclusively  in  its  hands, 
as  at  present,  is  to  trifle  with  the  whole  future  of  society. 
It  is  taking  a  chance  which  no  people  would  take  if 
they  realized  the  chance  they  were  taking.  While  the 
truth  may  be  mighty  there  are  odds  over  which  it  may 
not  prevail.  Public  indifference  in  this  as  in  so  many 
other  matters  is  due  to  public  ignorance. 

An  Issue  Involving  not  Men  but  Institutions.  But 
it  is  time  to  close  this  discussion  of  the  capitalist  and 
the  robber.  They  have  their  resemblances  and  their  dif- 
ferences which  may  be  summed  up  by  saying  that  while 
they  are  alike  in  living  upon  the  labor  of  others,  the 
capitalist  differs  from  the  robber  in  that  his  power  to 
do  this  depends  upon  his  performance  of  public  functions, 
whereas  that  of  the  robber  does  not.  And  while  they 
are  also  alike  in  being  superfluous  under  ideal  conditions, 
the  capitalist  is  no  more  superfluous  under  the  institu- 
tion of  capitalism  than  the  robber  is  superfluous  under 
the  institution  of  free  robbery.  We  have  abolished  the 
latter  institution,  so  we  look  upon  the  robber  with  dis- 
favor, but  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  among  cave 
men  robbery  was  as  honorable  a  pursuit  as  profit-seeking 
is  now,  and  the  most  successful  robber  was  the  most 
respectable  and  powerful  man  in  the  community,  a  posi- 
tion held  among  us  by  the  most  successful  capitalist. 
The  fact  that  eminent  respectability  and  power,  whether 
among  robbers,  kings  or  capitalists,  is  alloyed  with  a 
certain  unpopularity  should  not  side-track  us  into  taking 
a  personal  view  of  the  institutions  of  robbery,  monarchy 
or  capitalism.  Honesty  is  a  matter  of  institutions.  Be- 
ing a  robber  under  the  institution  of  robbery  is  as  honest 
as  being  a  capitalist  under  the  institution  of  capitalism. 
It  is  no  use  calling  a  capitalist  a  robber  unless  there  is 
something  to  be  learned  by  it.  If  by  doing  so  we'  are 
enabled  to  see  more  clearly  the  true  nature  of  this  iristi- 


CAPITALIST  NOT  A  ROBBER    77 

tution  of  capitalism  which  plays  so  large  a  part  in  all  our 
lives,  well  and  good;  but  if  all  we  express  by  it  is  a 
sentiment  of  dislike  or  disapproval  for  a  class  of  normal 
fellow  beings,  we  are  only  engaged  in  deceiving  our- 
selves and  others;  we  are  barking  up  the  wrong  tree, 
and  are  blaming  men  for  ills  which  can  only  be  blamed 
upon  institutions. 


IV 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING  TO 
POLITICS 

Why  the  World  Advances  Materially  and  Stagnates 
Morally.  The  great  accomplishments  of  our  age  are 
due  to  the  m-ethods  of  engineering.  Digging  the  Panama 
Canal,  navigating  the  air,  talking  across  the  Atlantic, 
aboHshing  typhoid  fever,  are  achievements  which  typify 
what  engineering  can  do  in  the  service  of  mankind.  Al- 
though the  kinds  of  things  accomplished  by  engineers 
are  infinitely  varied  the  method  of  accomplishment  is 
always  the  same — it  is  the  method  of  science  directed  to 
doing,  instead  of  merely  knowing,  things.  No  advances 
comparable  with  those  of  science  are  to  be  discovered 
in  the  realm  of  morals,  including  religion,  or  in  politics, 
in  its  broader  sense — the  realm  in  which  the  method  of 
science  does  not  prevail.  There  is  a  reason  for  this  and 
a  simple  one.  In  order  to  achieve  anything  it  is  neces- 
sary to  know  how  to  achieve  it.  Advance  in  the  knowl- 
edge required  for  successful  achievement  is  only  ac- 
complished by  the  scientific  method — at  any  rate  no 
other  method  of  learning  how  to  do  things  has  ever  been 
described.  In  the  material  world  science  is  applied. 
Therefore  man  advances  in  material  achievement.  In 
the  moral  world — the  world  of  religion  and  politics — 
science  is  not  applied,  or  at  most  very  feebly.  Therefore 
man  fails  to  advance  in  moral  achievement.  That  seems 
to  be  the  explanation  of  the  whole  matter. 

This  disparity  between  the  physical  and  the  so-called 
moral  sciences  is  illustrated  by  the  type  of  "expert"  who 

78 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       79 

applies  them  in  the  world  to-day.  If  we  want  to  be 
cured  of  diphtheria  we  employ  a  physician ;  if  we  want 
to  build  a  railroad  we  employ  a  civil  engine-er;  and  if 
we  want  to  find  out  if  our  well  water  is  safe  to  drink 
we  apply  to  a  chemist.  Bi;t  when  we  want  laws  made 
and  institutions  designed,  do  we  go  to  a  political  engineer, 
who  is  skilled  in  these  arts?  By  no  means.  No  such 
person  exists,  because  science  has  not  been  applied  to 
such  matters.  We  go  to  a  politician,  whose  only  expert 
qualification  is  his  skill  in  acquiring  office.  Although 
there  are  some  notabl-e  exceptions,  the  methods  of  the 
average  law-giver  in  America  to-day  bear  no  resemblance 
to  the  methods  of  the  scientific  professions.  They  re- 
semble rather  the  methods  of  the  medicine  man,  the  rain- 
maker, the  soothsayer  or  the  whirling  dervish  who  are 
the  primitive  counterparts  of  the  doctor  and  the  engineer. 
We  select  political  medicine  men  for  our  law-givers  be- 
cause we  apply  science  to  politics  in  much  the  same  way 
that  the  savage  applies  it  to  medicine. 

The  obvious  thing  to  do  if  we  wish  to  accomplish  any- 
thing in  the  realm  of  morals  is  to  apply  science  there,  and 
it  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  chapter  to  discuss  some 
aspects  of  the  application  of  science  to  politics,  which 
is  the  department  of  morals  in  which  it  is  at  present 
easiest  for  the  scientific  or  engineering  method  to  get  a 
foothold — ^though  this  is  not  saying  it  is  easy,  even 
there. 

Characteristics  of  Applied  Science.  And  first  a  few 
words  about  the  characteristics  of  the  engineering 
method.  There  is  nothing  mysterious  about  them.  En- 
gineers learn  how  to  dig  canals,  talk  across  the  ocean, 
navigate  the  air,  and  abolish  disease  by  the  same  method 
used  by  intelligent  persons  in  learning  how  to  cook  an 
apple  pie,  or  tend  a  furnace,  or  manage  a  boat  or  a 
wheel-barrow.     The  broad  characteristics  of  the  method 


80      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

can  be  observed  about  as  well  in  the  kitchen  as  in  the 
engineer's  laboratory.  What  does  an  intelligent  girl  do 
when  she  wants  to  learn  how  to  make  an  apple  pie? 
She  first  reads  the  matter  up  in  the  cook  book  and  gets 
her  mother  to  show  her  all  she  can  about  it,  and  then 
she  tries  her  own  hand  at  it,  making  a  poor  pie  at  first, 
perhaps,  but  learning  by  her  mistakes,  until  the  relations 
of  cause  and  effect  in  pie-making  are  so  familiar  to  her 
that  she  no  longer  has  any  trouble  in  selecting  the  means 
which  will  accomplish  her  end. 

Now  the  business  of  adapting  means  to  ends — the  busi- 
ness of  engineering — is  carried  on  in  just  this  way  every- 
where when  it  is  carried  on  successfully.  The  engineer- 
ing laboratory,  whether  mechanical,  electrical,  chemical, 
or  medical,  differs  from  the  kitchen  only  in  the  degree  of 
refinement  practiced.  The  engineer  learns  how  to  build 
a  bridge  by  the  same  sort  of  procedure  that  is  used  by 
the  school  girl  in  building  a  pie.  He  first  learns  from 
books,  teachers,  laboratory  exercises  in  the  engineering 
school,  and  practice  as  assistant  to  more  experienced 
engineers  all  he  can  about  the  theory  of  bridge-building, 
and  then  he  goes  out  and  tries  his  hand  at  it. 

Two  Elements  of  the  Engineering  Method.  There 
are  thus  two  elements  or  stages  in  engineering  method. 
First,  learning  as  much  as  possible  from  past  experience 
— for  sound  theory  is  merely  past  experience  boiled 
down.  And  second,  learning  the  rest  by  trial  or  experi- 
ment. In  many  familiar  engineering  undertakings  in 
which  past  experience  has  been  ample,  the  second  stage 
may  be  unnecessary.  The  theory  of  the  thing  is  so 
complete  that  it  is  sufficient  to  tell  the  engineer  all  he 
needs  to  know.  The  experimental  stage  is  confined  to 
determining  only  the  local  conditions  to  be  met. 

In  many  other  undertakings,  however,  the  second  stage 
assumes  great  importance.     This  is  particularly  the  case 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       81 

perhaps  in  mining  and  chemical  engineering.  But  it 
assumes  its  largest  importance  in  the  great  creativ-e  tri- 
umphs of  the  engineering  method — in  the  discovery  of 
how  to  navigate  the  air,  talk  across  space  or  rid  the 
world  of  a  pestilence.  Discoveries  are  seldom  evolved 
exclusively  out  of  the  inner  consciousness.  To  accom- 
plish creative  advances  in  engineering,  theory  is  but  an 
imperfect  guide.  The  wise  engineer  of  course  uses  it 
for  all  it  is  worth,  but  when  it  has  done  all  it  can,  and 
still  he  needs  more  knowledge  in  order  to  achieve  his 
result,  what  does  he  do  ?  Wait  for  it  to  come  to  him  ? 
No,  he  goes  and  gets  it — and  the  only  way  to  get  it  is 
by  experiment.  When  in  this  way  he  has  got  it  the  new 
knowledge,  now  a  part  of  past  experience,  is  incorporated 
with  the  old,  correcting,  modifying  and  augm-enting  it, 
a  process  which  keeps  scientific  theory  continually  up  to 
date.  The  theory  thus  perfected  affords  a  more  perfect 
guide  to  further  research,  suggesting  new  lines  of  in- 
quiry perhaps,  th-e  fruit  of  which  is  again  incorporated  in 
theory,  and  in  this  way  theory  and  experiment,  the  first 
and  the  second  elements  of  the  engineering  method,  act 
and  react  upon  each  other,  each  guiding  and  checking 
the  other,  and  thus  science  and  the  achievements  of 
science  advance  together. 

Unscientific  Methods.  This  method  is  so  obviously 
sensible  that  one  would  think  mankind  would  not  care 
to  use  any  other — ^perhaps  it  may  be  thought  no  other 
is  used — ^but  this  is  a  mistake.  In  addition  to  the  scien- 
tific, three  other  methods  of  attempting  to  identify  truth 
and  guide  conduct  are  very  common  among  men — the 
scholastic,  the  emotional  and  the  dogmatic. 

The  scholastic  method  is  characterized  by  the  use  of 
insufficiently  defined  words,  the  emotional  by  the  use  of 
feeling,  or  of  self-interest,  and  the  dogmatic  by  the  use 
of  mental  habit,  as  agencies  to  th-ese  ends.    They  con- 


82      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

stitute  the  three  great  sources  of  intuitionism  or  illogic, 
each  of  which  is  characterized  by  mental  processes  as 
distinct  as  those  of  the  scientific  method;  but  as  this  is 
not  a  philosophic  essay  it  would  be  out  of  place  to 
enlarge  upon  these  methods  here. 

Nevertheless,  brief  examples  of  their  application  may 
indicate  how  they  differ  from  the  engineering  method. 

Two  earnest  Americans,  A  and  B,  sit  down  to  discuss 
democracy,  but  neither  defines  (either  to  himself  or  the 
other)  what  he  means  by  it.  A  asserts  that  great  cor- 
porations are  democratic  institutions,  because  everyone 
has  equality  of  opportunity  to  buy  their  stocks  in  the 
open  market,  and  thus  share  in  their  ownership  and  con- 
trol. B  deni-es  they  are  democratic,  because  their  em- 
ployees and  those  who  consume  their  products  are  not 
represented  in  the  management.  A  replies  that  from 
"one  point  of  view"  perhaps  B  is  quite  right,  but  that 
from  another  he  is  not.  B  cannot  deny  this  proposition. 
Hence  the  conclusion  they  come  to  is  that  great  corpora- 
tions are  democratic  and  also  not  democratic,  depending 
on  the  point  of  view.  The  dispute  is  bound  to  be  an 
idle  one  because  there  has  been  no  agreement  about  the 
meaning  of  a  vital  word  used  (the  word  democracy)  but 
the  earnest  Americans  do  not  perceive  this.  Therefore, 
each  quits  the  discussion  knowing  exactly  as  much  about 
the  relation  between  great  corporations  and  democracy 
as  he  did  when  he  began  it.  In  other  words,  there  has 
been  no  progress  toward  discovering  the  truth  about  the 
issue  discussed.  This  is  an  example  of  logomania  or 
the  scholastic  method. 

An  undogmatic  but  patriotic  German  workingman  is 
asked  why  he  supports  the  Imperial  German  government 
in  its  effort  to  destroy  the  struggling  socialist  republic 
of  Russia,  and  to  impose  autocracy  upon  the  world.  He 
replies  that  although  he  regrets  the  harm  done  the  rest 
of  the  world,  an  overwhelming  love  of  his  Fatherland 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       83 

and  flag  and  a  feeling  of  fealty  toward  them  proves  to 
his  satisfaction  that  it  is  his  duty  to  serve  his  country 
right  or  wrong.  In  other  words,  he  takes  his  conscience 
as  his  guide,  and  his  conscience,  in  tones  of  the  deepest 
conviction,  urges  him  to  assume  a  position  of  consistent 
patriotism,  and  act  upon  it.  In  this  case  emotion  has 
usurped  the  place  of  reason  as  a  judge  of  right  and 
wrong,  but  the  patriotic  German  is  not  aware  of  it,  and 
therefore  confuses  a  wrong  course  of  action  with  a  right 
one.  This  is  an  example  of  pathomania,  or  the  emotional 
method. 

An  unemotional  but  pious  Arab  is  asked  why  he  be- 
lieves that  there  is  but  one  God  and  Mahomet  is  his 
prophet.  He  replies  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  belief, 
but  of  knowledge  on  his  part.  His  parents  and  grand- 
parents and  all  his  countrymen  have  always  believed  it. 
All  intelligent  people  believe  it.  The  Koran  says  it  is 
so,  and  all  the  evidence  he  has  ever  heard  confirms  it. 
His  conviction  of  its  truth  is  so  deep  that  it  must  be 
true.  How  could  he  be  so  completely  convinced  of  it 
if  it  were  false  ?  Indeed  he  is  absolutely  unable  to  enter- 
tain a  doubt  of  it.  Therefore  it  must  be  so.  In  this 
case  early  and  persistently  entertained  conviction  has 
usurped  the  place  of  reason  as  a  test  of  truth  and  untruth, 
but  the  pious  Arab  is  not  aware  of  it,  and  therefore 
mistakes  a  false  belief  for  a  true  one.  This  is  an  exam- 
ple of  proteromania,  or  the  dogmatic  method. 

These  three  forms  of  mania  are  not  used  in  science 
(except  sometimes  by  mistake)  but  are  in  almost  com- 
plete possession  of  present-day  morals,  and  its  appli- 
cation in  politics.  This  condition  of  things  must  be 
changed  before  a  real  moral  science  can  come  into 
existence. 

To  Adapt  Means  to  Ends  We  Must  Know  What  the 
End  Is.    To  apply  engineering  methods  to  politics 


84     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

requires  that  the  essential  conditions  under  which  they 
are  applied  in  mechanics,  electricity,  etc.  be  realized,  and 
this  requires  in  the  first  place  a  sufficiently  clear  idea  of 
the  object  to  be  accomplished.  No  engineer  would 
undertak-e  to  build  a  structure  if  he  did  not  know  what 
structure  he  was  called  upon  to  build — he  would  not 
attempt  to  adapt  means  to  an  end  without  knowing  what 
end  he  was  aiming  at.  While  it  is  not  practical  here  to 
enter  into  an  elaborate  discussion  of  what  the  end  to  be 
attained  by  human  effort  ought  to  be,  yet  with  some 
confidence  it  can  be  said  that  the  end  is  determinable  by 
the  scientific  method. 

One  distinction,  however,  must  be  kept  in  mind  if  we 
are  to  think  at  all  clearly  about  this  matter,  and  that  is 
the  distinction  between  a  means  or  proximate  end,  and 
an  intrinsic  or  ultimate  end.  A  proximate  end  is  of  in- 
terest only  because  of  what  it  is  a  means  to.  An  ultimate 
end  is  of  interest  because  of  what  it  is.  Ultimate  ends 
are  attained  by  selecting  the  proper  proximate  ones.  To 
illustrate : 

A  boy  eating  a  peanut  is  engaged  in  seeking  an  ultimate 
end  through  a  proximate  one.  Eating  the  peanut  is  the 
proximate  -end.  The  pleasure  caused  by  eating  it  is  the 
ultimate  one.  The  eating  of  the  peanut  is  of  interest  to 
the  boy  only  because  of  what  it  is  a  means  to ;  namely^ 
pleasure.  It  is  of  no  interest  in  itself.  The  pleasure,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  of  interest  to  the  boy  because  of  what 
it  is,  and  not  because  it  is  a  cause  of  anything  else.  This 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  a  boy  who  does  not  like  peanuts 
does  not  eat  them.  He  is  not  interested  in  that  particular 
proximate  end.  Why?  Because  in  his  case  it  does  not 
lead  to  an  ultimate  one. 

Before  he  can  eat  peanuts,  of  course,  the  boy  who 
likes  them  has  to  take  steps  to  get  them.  He  has  .to 
get  some  money,  go  to  the  peanut-stand,  and  buy  the 
peanuts.    These  several  steps  are  also  means  or  proxi- 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       85 

mate  ends,  less  immediately  related  to  the  ultimate  one 
than  the  actual  eating  of  the  peanuts,  but  having  the 
characteristic  common  to  all  merely  proximate  ends  of 
being  interesting  as  causes,  but  not  as  effects.  The  final 
intentional  effect  of  taking  the  several  steps,  however — 
the  pleasure  which  ultimately  results  therefrom — is 
interesting  as  an  effect,  and  not  as  a  cause. 

In  this  simple  example,  perhaps,  it  is  easy  to  distin- 
guish proximate  from  ultimate  interest,  but  in  less  simple 
cases  it  is  not  so  easy.  Hence  one  of  the  commonest 
mistakes  made  both  by  the  average  man  and  by  moralists 
is  to  mistake  the  means  for  the  end,  and  therefore  to 
sacrifice  the  end  to  the  means.  We  shall  point  out  a 
little  later  how  men  and  nations  are  continually  doing  this 
to-day. 

Although  it  is  too  long  a  story  to  go  into  this  whole 
matter  profoundly  we  can  get  a  pretty  good  idea  how 
to  handle  it  for  the  practical  purpose  we  are  seeking  by 
going  back  to  the  original  sources  of  American  political 
ideals. 

The  End  Sought  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Republic. 
If  we  hark  back  to  the  early  period  of  American  his- 
tory we  find  a  set  of  political  thinkers  of  an  unusually 
philosophical  kind.  They  got  down  to  fundamentals  in 
a  way  that  unhappily  does  not  characterize  so  generally 
the  statesmen  of  to-day,  either  in  this  country  or  Europe. 
They  did  not  think  that  in  order  to  be  practical  it  was 
necessary  to  be  superficial.  They  had  theories  and  sound 
ones  as  to  why  government  existed  among  men,  and 
what  society  is,  or  at  any  rate  ought  to  be,  attempting  to 
accomplish  by  all  its  mighty  efforts. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  of  these  exponents  of  American- 
ism was  the  Reverend  John  Wise  of  Ipswich,  Massa- 
chusetts, who  contended  as  far  back  as  1687  that  "taxa- 
tion without  representation  is  tyranny,"  and  was  put  in 


86     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

jail  by  the  royal  governor  Andros  for  expressing  the 
sentiment.     Writing  about  1717,  he  informs  us  that: 

"A  civil  state  is  a  compound  moral  person  whose  will  .  .  . 
is  the  will  of  all,  to  the  end  it  may  use  and  apply  the  strength 
and  riches  of  private  persons  towards  maintaining  the  common 
peace,  security  and  well-being  of  all  which  may  be  concerned 
as  though  the  whole  state  was  now  become  but  one  man." 

He  then  proceeds  to  show  how  this  "compound  moral 
person"  may  be  "anatomized,"  classifying  its  character- 
istics under  eight  headings,  the  sixth  of  which  is  as 
follows : 

"(6)  Salus  Populi,  or  the  happiness  of  the  people,  is  the  end 
of  its  being;   or  main  business  to  be  attended  and  done." 

Thus  the  idea  expressed  by  this  earliest  of  American 
political  philosophers  is  that  "the  strength  and  riches"  of 
the  members  of  the  body  politic  should  be  directed  to 
"maintaining  the  common  peace,  security  and  well-being" 
of  the  body  as  a  whole.  But  it  is  obvious  from  his  later 
specific  statement  that  "the  happiness  of  the  people  is 
the  end  of  its  being,"  that  peace,  security,  and  well-being 
are  to  be  maintained,  not  because  they  are  of  interest  as 
ends  in  themselves,  but  because  they  are  means  to  that 
common  happiness  which  is  the  true  end.  In  other 
words,  he  distinguishes  between  proximate  and  ultimate 
interest — between  means  and  ends. 

About  sixty  years  later  we  find  the  same  idea  expressed 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence — still  the  best  ex- 
pression of  Americanism  extant — where  among  man- 
kind's inalienable  rights  are  specified  "life,  liberty  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Again  the  last  word  is  the 
key  to  all  the  rest,  for  life  devoid  of  happiness  is  value- 
less to  him  who  lives  it,  liberty  is  worth  nothing  if  it  is 
only  liberty  to  be  miserable,  and  what  is  the  use  of  pur- 
suing happiness  if  the  pursuit  is  unsuccessful  ? 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       87 

f     ' 

Once  more  in  the  constitution  of  Massachusetts  the 
idea  is  made  still  more  explicit,  and  the  fact  that  the 
end  of  government  is  a  collective  or  social,  and  not  a 
mere  individual  end  is  re-emphasized : 

"Article  VII.  Government  is  instituted  for  the  common  good; 
for  the  protection,  safety,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the 
people;  and  not  for  the  profit,  honor,  or  private  interest  of 
any  one  man,  family,  or  class  of  men:  Therefore  the  people 
alone  have  an  incontestable,  unalienable,  and  indefeasible  right 
to  institute  government;  and  to  reform,  alter,  or  totally  change 
the  same,  when  their  protection,  safety,  prosperity,  and  happi- 
ness require  it." 

Here  the  means  coupled  with  the  real  end  happen  to 
be  protection,  safety,  and  prosperity,  but  the  same  prin- 
ciple applies  to  them  as  to  all  other  means.  As  means 
alone  they  are  worthless.  Take  away  the  happiness  to 
which  they  normally  lead,  and  the  people's  right  to,  or 
use  for,  them  would  be  an  empty  one. 

This  idea  that  public  happiness  is  the  end  for  which 
governments  are  instituted  among  men  is  repeated  with 
endless  variation  of  phrase  in  the  declarations  of  rights 
and  the  constitutions  adopted  by  the  original  states  of 
this  union,  and  when  happiness  is  not  mentioned  by 
name,  one  or  another  set  of  means  to  it  are,  as  for  in- 
stance in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  it  is 
asserted  that  the  purpose  of  its  adoption  is  to  "form  a 
more  perfect  Union,  establish  Justice,  insure  domestic 
Tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote 
the  general  Welfare,  and  secure  the  Blessings  of  Liberty 
to  ourselves  and  our  posterity." 

Now  the  end  which  justifies  the  establishment,  modifi- 
cation or  destruction  of  government  is  the  same  end 
that  justifies  the  establishment,  modification  or  destruc- 
tion of  all  other  institutions  among  men,  the  end  indeed 
which  justifies  means  in  general.     It  is  simply  the  end 


88      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

of  gr-eatest  interest  to  mankind*  as  a  whole,  namely  the 
happiness  of  mankind  as  a  whole.  To  this  end  all  means 
should  be  directed  and  subordinated;  a  fact  which  inci- 
dentally gives  us  the  answer  to  a  question  which  vexes 
a  good  many  people — the  question  of  wheth-er  or  no  the 
end  justifies  the  means.  The  answer  is  that  the  end  of 
greatest  ultimate  interest  to  mankind*  justifies  all  means, 
but  that  no  end  opposed  to  it  justifies  any  means. 

The  moral  code  which  sets  before  men  the  greatest 
totality  of  happiness  as  the  ultimate  object  of  human 
effort  is  called  the  code  of  utility.  It  teaches  that  under 
all  circumstances  the  course  of  conduct  which  tends  most 
to  increase  happiness  (or  to  decrease  unhappiness)  is  the 
right  course  among  nations  as  among  individuals.  It  is 
the  scientific  basis  of  morals,  because  the  proposition  that 
the  end  of  greatest  interest  to  mankind  is  the  happiness 
of  mankind,  rests  not  upon  any  one's  opinion,  but  ex- 
clusively upon  evidence.  And  this  is  true  of  no  other 
code.  As  already  intimated  it  would  be  out  of  place 
to  go  into  this  great  subject  here.  It  must  suffice  for 
our  purpose  to  indicate  how  consistently  the  traditional 
American  code  of  political  conduct  conforms  to  that  of 
utility.  To  seek  the  course  of  greatest  usefulness  is  to 
practice  sound  Americanism. 

Political  Engineering.  To  apply  the  engineering 
method  to  the  attainment  of  the  end  of  greatest  utility 
is  as  reasonable  and  feasible  as  to  apply  it  to  any  other 
end.  Indeed  to  fail  to  apply  that  method  is  to  fail  to 
attain  the  end  of  all  ends  most  important.  The  science 
which  directs  human  conduct  to  this  end,  therefore,  is 
as  much  entitled  to  the  name  of  engineering  as  those 
which  direct  it  to  merely  proximate  ends,  as  the  common 

*  Absolute  accuracy  requires  the  word  sentiency  in  place  of 
mankind  at  this  point,  but  this  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the 
reason  why. 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       89 

branches  of  engineering  do.  Human  experience  already 
affords  the  material  for  the  formulation  of  such  a  science. 
Indeed,  it  is  already  formulated  in  a  fragmentary  man- 
ner. Its  parts  are  found  scattered  through  all  the  social 
sciences.  They  only  require  the  coordination  and  unifi- 
cation obtainable  from  the  recognition  of  a  common  end 
to  constitute  a  starting  point  for  the  most  important  of 
all  branches  of  engineering — that  which  guides  men  in 
adapting  their  means  to  the  end  of  greatest  interest  to 
them.    This  science  I  shall  call  political  engineering. 

What  I  mean  by  saying  that  many  of  the  parts  out 
of  which  a  science  of  political  engineering  may  be  con- 
structed are  scattered  through  other  sciences  may  be 
illustrated  by  the  invention  of  the  automobil-e.  For  years 
before  its  invention,  the  elements  out  of  which  it  might 
have  been  constructed  were  familiar.  Wheels,  axles, 
pneumatic  tires,  gasoline  engines,  gears  of  all  kinds, 
steering  wheels,  seats,  dashboards,  etc.,  were  familiar 
to  mechanics  and  others,  but  they  had  never  been  as- 
'sembled,  coordinated  and  adapted  to  one  another  in  such 
a  way  as  to  constitute  a  self-propelled  vehicle  for  travel- 
ing on  a  road. 

In  the  same  way,  great  numbers  of  observations,  laws 
and  speculations  relating  to  human  nature,  human  insti- 
tutions, and  human  experience  in  general  are  to  be  found 
in  the  records  of  history,  and  in  the  sciences  of  psychol- 
ogy, sociology,  economics  and  others,  which  are  well 
adapted  to  help  in  a  search  after  usefulness ;  but  they  have 
never  been  assembled,  coordinated  and  adapted  to  one  an- 
other in  such  a  way  as  to  constitute  a  science  devoted  to 
the  sole  object  of  adapting  men's  means  to  the  end  of 
greatest  ultimate  interest  to  them — to  wit,  the  end  of  util- 
ity. The  formulation  of  such  a  science  is  infinitely  more 
important  to  the  happiness  of  man  than  the  invention  of 
the  automobile,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  efforts  of 
many  competent  men  which  present  educational  methods 


90     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

tend  to  scatter  in  doubtfully  useful  directions,  may  in 
time  become  focused  upon  it.  In  the  pages  to  follow 
some  applications  of  such  a  science  will  be  illustrated. 

To  make  mankind's  pursuit  of  happiness  successful 
then  is  the  object  of  political  engineering,  and  it  is  the 
task  of  the  political  engineer  to  invent  means  of  doing  it. 
Being  a  special  case  of  adapting  means  to  ends,  the  gen- 
eral methods  of  engineering  are  applicable.  Inventing, 
whether  mechanical  or  political,  is  an  engineering  process 
and  involves  the  two  stages  or  elements  of  the  engineer- 
ing method,  the  theoretical  and  the  experimental.  The 
political  inventor  first  uses  his  knowledge  of  theory  to 
guide  his  imagination  to  some  plausible  expedient  for 
accomplishing  his  end,  and  having  perfected  it  as  much 
as  possible  as  a  theoretical  solution  of  his  problem — hav- 
ing, like  the  mechanical  engineer,  made  it  look  as  plausible 
and  practical  as  possible  on  paper— it  is  next  necessary 
for  him  to  try  it  out  on  an  experimental  scale,  so  as  to 
correct  mistakes  of  theory  and  work  out  details  by  the 
method  of  trial  and  error. 

Dogma  as  an  Obstacle  to  the  Application  of  Politi- 
cal Engineering.  Illogically  enough  the  first  step  of 
this  process — the  use  of  the  imagination  to  devise  a 
theoretical  plan,  and  the  elaboration  of  this  plan  on  paper 
— ^is  generally  discredited  when  applied  to  expedients 
for  making  mankind  happy.  The  name  usually  applied  to 
the  process  is  utopianism,  and  it  is  supposed  to  be  an 
occupation  confined  to  impractical  visionaries.  Just  as 
if  there  was  any  other  way  of  going  about  the  solution 
of  the  problems  which  actually  confront  men.  This  so- 
called  utopianism  is  an  essential  part  of  the  method  of 
applied  science.  Every  invention  ever  made,  mechanical, 
electrical,  chemical,  social  or  political,  has  required.it. 
Without  it  man's  material  condition  would  be  that  of  a 
naked  and  homeless  brute.     Not  only  is  it  practical,  but 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       91 

I  '  — — ^ 

every  other  m-ethod  is  impractical.  And  yet  so-called 
practical  men  seek  to  discredit  it,  and  talk  sapiently  of 
"expedients  that  are  all  very  v^ell  in  theory,"  or  *iook 
well  enough  on  paper,"  as  pretexts  for  avoiding  examin- 
ing them  on  their  merits.  What  is  the  consequence? 
Stagnation  and  the  triumph  of  dogmatism.  The  victory 
of  custom  over  common  sense — of  drifting  over  doing. 
For,  of  course,  when  confronted  with  a  difficulty  (and 
every  situation  which  interferes  with  human  happiness  is 
a  difficulty)  if  we  refuse  to  invent  our  way  out  of  it 
there  is  nothing  to  do  but  to  stay  in  it — to  sit  down  and 
wait  for  something  to  turn  up — to  trust  to  Providence  or 
evolution  or  time  to  do  it — to  have  faith  that  it  will  cure 
itself — in  short,  to  "sit  on  a  stile  and  continue  to  smile" 
in  the  hope  of  softening  the  heart  of  fate. 

Utopian  Failures  No  Arguments  for  Inaction.  Such 
an  attitude  of  mind  appears  to  receive  some  support 
from  reason,  because  many  social  schemes  and  inventions 
*can  be  cited  which  have  been  tried  and  failed — that  is, 
they  have  not  accomplished  what  their  inventors  expected 
them  to  accomplish.  The  tendency  of  these  failures  is 
to  make  men  distrust  all  attempts  to  solve  the  more 
stubborn  problems  of  human  life,  a  distrust  which  has 
some  rational  basis  when  it  does  not  degenerate  into 
dogmatism,  for  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  more  fre- 
quent the  failure  to  achieve  a  result  the  greater  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  next  attempt  will  fail.  But  as  a  mat- 
ter of  fact  the  obstructive,  dogmatic  attitude  of  mind  is 
the  most  potent  cause  of  the  failures  in  social  reconstruc- 
tion which  are  cited  as  justifications  for  that  attitude. 
Where  there  is  a  will  there  is  a  way,  but  the  way  is  hard 
where  the  will  is  weak.  It  is  supremely  hard  where  the 
will  is  opposed.  Social  inventions  require  the  coopera- 
tion of  society  to  make  them  succeed.  If  society  refuses 
cooperation  it  is  itself  responsible  for  the  failure  it  con- 


92      AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

demns.  If  failure  to  accomplish  a  given  result  were  a 
proof  that  it  could  not  be  accomplished  then  little  or 
nothing  would  be  possible.  For  it  is  rare  indeed  that 
failure  does  not  precede  success.  This  however  should 
not  teach  us  to  give  up  trying.  It  should  only  teach  us 
to  conduct  our  failures  on  a  small  scale,  so  that  we  shall 
gain  in  knowledge  more  than  enough  to  compensate  for 
what  we  expend  in  effort.  This  is  the  principle  of  en- 
gineering experimentation.  It  is  the  principle  of  the 
efficient  manufacture  of  knowledge,  and  right  here 
political  engineering  can  receive  one  of  its  most  impor- 
tant lessons  from  engineering  practice  in  general. 

Engineering  Failures  No  Arguments  for  Inaction. 

The  failures  which  can  be  cited  in  social  inventions — 
the  fiascos  of  communists  and  the  wrecked  hopes  of  re- 
deemers— can  be  duplicated  a  thousand-fold  in  the  fail- 
ures of  more  mundane  engineering  efforts.  There  is 
more  than  one  reason  for  this,  but  the  principal  one  is 
that  for  every  social  or  political  experiment  undertaken 
by  men,  there  have  been  a  thousand  mechanical  or 
material  ones.  All  the  great  inventions  which  have  revo- 
lutionized the  industrial  world  have  been  preceded  by 
disastrous,  failures,  usually  many  of  them.  This  was 
particularly  so  in  the  earlier  days  of  engineering  science 
before  men  had  learned  to  make  their  mistakes  on  a 
small  scale.  Scores  of  men  had  tried  to  make  a  practical 
steam  engine  before  Watt.  Stephenson's  locomotive  was 
not  the  first  that  ever  attempted  locomotion.  Many 
primitive  steamboats  had  floundered  and  foundered  in 
the  waters  of  Europe  and  America  before  Fulton's 
Clermont  made  its  memorable  maiden  voyage  up  the 
Hudson.  Dozens  of  pioneers  had  clicked  intelligible 
communications  over  wires  before  Morse  sent  his  first 
telegraph  message — "What  hath  God  wrought" — from 
Baltimore  to  Washington.    And  the  history  of  the  auto- 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       93 

1 

mobile,  the  airship,  the  submarine,  of  electric  locomo- 
tives, wireless  telephony  and  painkss  surgery,  all  reveal 
many  failures  previous  to  success.  The  public  seeing 
only  the  successes  forget  the  failures  or  suppose  there 
were  none,  and  conclude  that  nothing  comparable  can 
be  accomplished  in  politics  because  they  see  nothing  com- 
parable accomplished.  The  lesson  they  should  learn 
from  the  comparison  is  that  the  method  which  they  see 
so  successful  in  the  world  of  material  things — the  engi- 
neering method — is  the  yery  one  to  apply  to  politics  in 
order  to  make  it  successful  also. 

Ease  of  Collective  Experiment.  And  there  is  not 
the  slightest  reason  why  it  should  not  be  applied  there. 
Indeed,  society  in  seeking  the  common  ends  of  men 
has  a  vast  advantage  over  the  solitary  inventor  strug- 
gling alone  with  the  perversities  of  inanimate  nature. 
It  is  in  an  ideal  position  to  make  such  mistakes  as  must 
be  made  on  a  small  scale.  It  can  experiment  almost 
without  effort.  It  is  even  better  designed  to  increase 
knowledge  than  to  increase  wealth,  and  indeed,  for  that 
matter,  it  can  increase  wealth  most  rapidly  by  giving  far 
more  attention  than  it  does  to  the  increase  of  knowledge. 

The  advantage  of  collective  over  individual  effort  in 
the  creation  of  wealth  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge. 
By  applying  the  principle  of  the  division  of  labor — the 
division  of  function  between  a  number  of  individuals  and 
their  cooperation  to  a  common  purpose — far  more  can 
be  accomplished  than  by  each  individual  working  alone. 
The  output  per  man  in  our  great  socialized  industries 
like  steel,  textile  and  packing  industries  averages  many 
times  what  it  did  under  primitive  individualist  conditions. 
This  method  of  division  of  function  is  even  more  advan- 
tageous in  the  creation  of  knowledge  than  of  wealth. 
By  superseding  individual  by  collective  effort  all  the  ad- 


94     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

vantages  arising  from  the  application  of  the  principle  to 
the  creation  of  wealth  are  secured,  and  several  more. 

There  are  at  least  two  reasons  for  this  advantage  of 
knowledge  over  wealth  as  a  collective  product. 

First,  in  distributing  knowledge  among  the  individuals 
of  a  community  the  gain  of  one  is  not  the  loss  of  another, 
as  it  is  in  the  case  of  wealth.  If  one  person  divides 
equally  one  hundred  dollars'  worth  of  wealth  with  an- 
other he  is  poorer  by  fifty  dollars'  worth,  but  if  he 
divides  a  hundred  dollars'  worth,  or  any  other  quantity, 
of  knowledge  he  is  not  a  particle  poorer  in  knowledge 
himself.  He  is  indeed  likely  to  be  richer,  for  knowledge 
gains  in  clearness  to  him  who  imparts  it  to  another. 

Second,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  the  consumption  of 
knowledge — there  is  nothing  corresponding  to  the  de- 
struction of  wealth  by  use.  Wealth  has  to  be  continually 
renewed ;  it  is  produced  only  to  be  consumed.  But  any 
portion  of  knowledge  once  created  is  permanent ;  it  does 
not  have  to  be  renewed;  and  constitutes  an  enduring 
element  in  the  structure  of  human  enlightenment,  only  to 
be  destroyed  by  some  cataclysm  which  would  wipe  out 
the  records  of  human  intellectual  achievement.  When  a 
farmer  by  hard  labor  produces  a  bushel  of  wheat  he  has 
created  something  which  will  disappear  by  consumption 
within  a  year  or  so;  but  when  an  agricultural  experi- 
menter by  hard,  or  perhaps  easy,  labor  has  discovered  a 
method  whereby  two  bushels  of  wheat  may  be  grown 
by  the  same  effort  which  formerly  produced  but  one,  he 
has  created  something  which  will  endure  and  can  be 
utilized  by  farmers  for  all  time,  and  may  be  distributed 
throughout  a  community  at  trifling  cost  and  without  loss 
by  division.  He  has  also  made  it  easier  to  create 
methods  for  producing  three  or  four  bushels  of  wheat 
with  the  effort  formerly  required  to  produce  one. 

Moreover,  should  a  single  farmer  set  out  on  the  indi- 
vidual plan  to  discover  a  method  of  doubling  his  wheat 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING      95 

yield  without  increasing  his  effort  he  would  probably 
make  but  little  progress  and  what  he  did  make  would 
benefit  himself  alone,  but  should  each  member  of  a 
nation  of  a  hundred  million  people  contribute  a  tenth  of 
a  cent  toward  the  solution  of  the  problem  by  a  set  of 
experts,  working  in  conjunction  with  a  national  depart- 
ment of  agriculture,  an  excellent  chance  of  solving  it 
partially  or  wholly  for  a  whole  nation  or  world  of 
farmers  would  be  presented.  That  is,  by  using  the  indi- 
vidualist plan  an  individual  by  giving  up  many  years  of 
his  life  would  be  able  to  accomplish  little  toward  the 
progress  of  such  technical  knowledge,  and  what  he  ac- 
complished would  benefit  one  family  only;  whereas  by 
using  the  collectivist  plan  every  individual  in  the  nation 
could  be  benefited  to  a  far  greater  extent  through  assign- 
ing this  special  work  to  experts  working  in  the  national 
interest,  and  it  would  only  cost  each  of  them  the  amount 
of  life  represented  by  withdrawing  a  tenth  of  a  cent 
from  his  income.  This  illustrates  the  possibilities  of  the 
collectivist  method  applied  to  the  creation  of  useful 
knowledge  and  this  method  can  be  applied  in  any  field 
where  it  is  possible  to  create  knowledge.  Applied  to  the 
development  of  discovery  and  invention  in  the  field  of 
political  and  industrial  institutions  it  is  capable  of  be- 
coming an  engine  of  progress  of  undreamed-of  power. 

The  Cooperative  Commonwealth.  The  ideal  of 
any  great  community,  preferably  the  world  community, 
cooperating  to  any  useful  end  has  an  element  of  inspira- 
tion in  it,  but  the  ideal  of  such  cooperation  to  the  end  of 
greatest  interest  to  humanity,  to  the  accomplishment  of 
the  greatest  possible  output  of  happiness  on  earth,  is  the 
most  inspiring  ideal  which  can  be  presented  to  the  practi- 
cal political  philosopher.  This  is  the  goal  of  political 
engineering.  It  is  the  problem  set  before  the  engineer- 
ing method  when  it  is  applied  to  politics,  and  its  most 


96     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

successful  solution  will  be  achieved  when  the  whole  com- 
munity, preferably  the  world  community,  conducts  its 
activities  just  as  the  activities  of  a  well  organized  fac- 
tory ar€  conducted,  on  the  principle  of  cooperation  be- 
tween units  of  differing  functions;  only  instead  of  aim- 
ing at  the  most  efficient  production  of  cloth  or  shoes  or 
steel  railsyit  is  the  most  efficient  production  of  happiness 
limed  at ;  an  aim  which  requires  the  application 
of  the  collectivist  method  as  consistently  to  the  creation 
of  knowledge  as  to  that  of  wealth. 

The  Human  Organism  a  Cooperative  Common- 
wealth. Such  a  cooperative  commonwealth  finds  its 
counterpart  in  the  human  body.  Just  as  the  aggregate 
of  cells  constituting  the  body  cooperate  for  the  good  of 
the  body  as  a  whole,  so  the  individuals  constituting  the 
body  politic  should  cooperate  for  the  good  of  the  com- 
munity as  a  whole.  And  just  as  the  various  groups  of 
cells  are  assigned  different  functions,  nervous,  digestive, 
vascular,  etc.,  each  working  in  harmony  with  all  the 
others,  so  the  members  of  the  community  should  be 
divided  into  groups  and  sub-groups  with  specialized 
functions,  each  working  in  harmony  with  all  the  others 
for  the  common  end.  Such  a  concept  is,  to  the  engineer, 
more  than  an  abstract  analogy.  It  is  a  practical  working 
guide.  There  are  probably  few  who  will  not  admit  that 
the  relation  of  individuals  to  the  body  politic  should  be 
that  of  cells  to  the  body  corporeal^  but  to  make  such  an 
admission  useful  it  must  be  translated  into  concrete 
terms.  The  important  thing  to  determine  is  whether 
such  a  relation  between  individuals  and  society  now 
actually  exists,  and  if  not  what  steps  should  be  taken 
to  attain  it. 

When  thus  translated  into  concrete  terms  this  analogy 
is  very  useful  in  throwing  Hght  upon  the  relations  at 
present  obtaining  in  human  society,  and  it  is  particularly 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       97 

! 

applicable  to  the  general  theme  of  this  book — the  issue 
between  the  private  and  public  operation  of  public  indus- 
tries. 

In  the  first  place  the  analogy  helps  us  to  understand 
in  what  sense  the  function  of  individuals  in  society  is  a 
social  one.  That  it  is  a  social  function  follows  from  the 
fact  that  the  object  of  human  activity  is  the  greatest 
happiness  of  society,  an  object  which  is  defeated  when- 
ever the  interest  of  individuals  is  permitted  to  prevail 
over  that  of  society.  The  proper  relation  is  found  in  the 
human  body,  in  which  the  cells  perform  their  functions 
solely  with  a  view  to  the  well-being  of  the  cell  community 
as  a  whole.  Any  other  condition  is  a  diseased  one.  And 
similarly  in  the  body  politic,  when  the  interest  of  indi- 
viduals prevails  over  that  of  society  we  have  a  diseased 
society.  Present  day  society,  indeed,  is  permeated  with  the"  l-^ 
disease  of  excessive  individualism.  There  is  nothing^-* 
corresponding  to  it  in  the  healthy  body  corporeal. 
Should  the  cells  of  the  human  body  attempt  to  practice 
such  individualism,  seeking  their  own  immediate  ends 
irrespective  of  the  effect  upon  the  rest  of  the  body,  the 
result  would  be  the  death  of  the  whole  body.  Only 
among  unicellular  organisms  in  which  there  is  little  inter- 
cellular organization  is  such  individualism  possible. 

In  the  second  place  the  analogy  helps  us  to  understand 
the  nature  of  a  public  function.  It  is  simply  any  activity 
affecting  the  interest  of  the  public  as  a  whole.  All  the 
cells  of  the  human  body  while  in  health  are  engaged  in 
performing  public  functions,  functions,  i.e.,  affecting  the 
welfare  of  the  body  as  a  whole.  Whether  they  also 
perform  private  functions  we  do  not  know.  But  there  is 
certainly  nothing  in  the  body  of  any  animal,  or  in  any 
normal  organization  of  cells  to  be  found  in  nature,  corre- 
sponding to  capitalism;  that  is,  to  the  performance  of 
public    functions  as  by-processes  of  private  self-seeking. 


98     AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Suppose  the  Principle  of  Capitalism  Applied  to  the 
Human  Organism.  To  make  this  matter  clear  just 
suppose  the  practice  of  capitalism  were  to  be  introduced 
into  the  human  body.  Suppose,  for  instance,  the  vascu- 
lar system  of  the  body  was  controlled  by  a  set  of  stock- 
holding cells  scattered  through  the  body,  and  operated 
with  the  primary  purpose  of  diverting  as  much  of  the 
body's  nutriment  as  possible  to  these  particular  cells, 
the  function  of  the  system  as  a  means  of  circulating  the 
blood  being  incidental  to  this  primary  and  private  func- 
tion— only  performed,  that  is,  as  a  by-process,  imposed 
by  the  necessities  of  the  situation.  What  kind  of  health 
would  a  body  whose  public  functions  were  performed  on 
this  principle  enjoy?  How  would  you  like  to  have  your 
body  operated  on  such  a  principle — the  principle  of 
capitalism?  Not  only  the  vascular,  but  the  nervous,  the 
digestive,  the  various  secretive  functions,  etc.,  all  oper- 
ated with  the  primary  purpose  of  increasing  the  flow  of 
nutriment  (which  is  the  wealth  of  the  body  corporeal) 
to  the  stock-holding  cells  of  the  body,  producing  fatty 
degeneration  among  the  capitalist,  and  anaemia  among 
the  non-capitalist  cells.  Would  you  accept  such  a  method 
of  conducting  your  bodily  functions  if  it  were  offered 
you?  Of  course  not.  And  yet  in  modem  communities 
it  is  precisely  on  this  principle  that  most  public  func- 
tions are  carried  on.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  there  is 
perpetual  trouble — that  the  symptoms  of  the  chronic 
disease  from  which  the  body  politic  is  suffering  are 
everywhere  evident?  The  wonder  is  rather  that  society 
is  tough  enough  to  survive.  Were  it  as  delicate  as  the 
human  body  it  never  could  do  it.  Such  a  system  as 
capitalism  would  kill  a  highly  organized  society.  As  it 
is,  it  only  retards  the  growth  of  a  loosely  and  crudely 
organized  one — corresponding  perhaps  to  a  primitive 
community  of  protozoan  cells  just  beginning  to  evolve 
from  the  unicellular  condition. 


APPLYING  ENGINEERING       99 

Adapting  Design  to  Working  Material  in  Engineer- 
ing. Another  comparison  of  political  with  industrial 
engineering  methods  will  help  to  throw  light  on  the 
scientific  treatment  of  political  problems.  The  industrial 
engineer  whether  he  is  dealing  with  dead  inanimate  mat- 
ter as  in  mechanics  and  electricity,  or  whether  the 
material  he  has  to  work  with  is  living,  as  in  the  case  of 
agriculture  and  biology,  or  whether  it  is  partly  the  one 
and  partly  the  other,  as  in  sanitation,  aims  to  adapt  his 
means  to  the  characteristics  of  the  materials  he  is  dealing 
with — to  take  advantage  of  the  qualities  of  his  working 
substances,  so  designing  his  apparatus  and  procedure 
as  to  adapt  them  to  these  qualities.  In  so  doing  he  must 
reckon  with  their  limitations,  not  imposing  upon  any 
force  or  structure  a  task  or  a  strain  beyond  its  capacity 
to  bear,  and  yet  making  the  qualities  available  to  him  do 
all  that  is  possible  toward  the  end  sought. 

Thus  in  designing  a  railroad  bridge  the  engineer  uses 
steel  girders  because  they  possess  the  qualities  he  wants. 
He  does  not  attempt  to  use  cornstalks.  And  in  his  de- 
sign he  reckons  to  use,  without  abusing,  all  the  qualities 
of  steel  adaptable  to  his  end.  He  does  not  overlook  the 
density,  the  tensile,  or  compressive  strength,  the  elas- 
ticity, the  expansion  by  heat,  or  any  of  the  other  perti- 
nent characteristics  of  his  working  material  but,  at  the 
peril  of  failure  and  disaster,  adapts  his  design  to  them. 
Thus  in  agriculture  the  sensible,  and  therefore  scientific, 
farmer  does  not  attempt  to  fertilize  his  crops  with  salt, 
to  feed  his  cows  on  sawdust,  to  use  his  sheep  for  plowing, 
to  plant  corn  in  swamps  or  water-cress  on  hill-tops.  He 
adapts  his  procedure  to  the  characteristics  of  the  mate- 
rials he  has  to  work  with,  and,  within  the  limits  imposed 
by  his  knowledge  and  environment,  adjusts  the  conditions 
of  life  to  the  qualities  of  the  living  beings  with  which 
he  works  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  in  the  best  way 
possible  the  ends  he  is  seeking. 


100    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  I 

Human  Nature  the  Working  Material  of  Political 
Engineering.  Now  the  material  with  which  the  politi- 
cal engineer  builds  is  human  nature.  This  is  his  working 
substance.  And  he  must  reckon  with  its  qualities  as  the 
mechanical  engineer  reckons  with  the  qualities  of  steel, 
wood  and  cement,  or  the  agricultural  engineer  with  the 
qualities  of  soil,  wheat,  horses  or  cows.  He  must  con- 
sider what  qualities  or  properties  of  human  nature  are 
adapted  to  his  end — the  production  of  happiness — and 
the  limitations  of  those  qualities ;  and  he  must  so  design 
his  apparatus  and  modes  of  procedure — human  institu- 
tions— that  these  qualities  will  be  used  and  not  abused; 
that  tasks  or  strains  will  not  be  imposed  upon  them 
that  they  are  not  fitted  to  bear,  and  yet  as  much  accom- 
plished by  them  as  possible.  Methods  of  applying  such 
qualities  of  human  nature  as  intelligence,  self-interest 
and  conservatism  to  useful,  instead  of  harmful,  or  par- 
tially harmful  ends,  will  be  illustrated  in  the  chapters 
following. 

Complexity  of  Human  Nature  not  an  Obstacle.  It 
may  be  contended  that  we  cannot  compare  human  nature 
with  the  working  substances  of  applied  physics  because 
of  its  complexity,  variability  and  uncertainty ;  and  hence 
the  analogy  between  machines  and  institutions  is  a  mis- 
leading one.  Of  course,  if  we  note  only  the  resem- 
blances while  neglecting  the  differences  between  the  two 
terms  of  an  analogy  we  shall  often  be  misled.  But  I 
have  no  intention  of  doing  it.  Complex  things  may  be 
as  subject  to  rule  as  simple  ones.  A  sheep  is  far  more 
complex  than  a  brick,  but  it  is  no  more  impractical  to 
count  upon  sheep  as  means  of  raising  wool  than  upon 
bricks  as  means  of  building  houses.  If  human  nature 
were  utterly  lacking  in  uniformity  it  could  not  be  counted 
upon  to  react  in  any  particular  way  to  any  particular 


APPLYING  ENGINKERIKGr     101 

I 

stimulus,  and  no  rules  for  its  guidance  could  be  laid 
down.  But  it  is  not  lacking  in  uniformity.  Even  the 
insane  who  depart  most  from  uniformity  of  conduct,  by 
no  means  depart  completely  from  it.  The  complexities 
of  human  action  are  usually  but  slight  irregularities 
superimposed  upon  more  deep-seated  uniformities. 
Were  it  not  so  orderly  life  of  any  kind  would  be  as 
impossible  among  the  sane  as  among  the  insane.  If  the 
departure  of  human  nature  from  uniformity  were  so 
great  as  to  render  all  rules  of  political  engineering  im- 
practical, th-en  it  would  not  only  render  all  government  im- 
practical, but  it  would  mean  that  starting  a  grocery  store 
or  a  hotel  or  a  railroad  would  be  impractical,  because 
men  would  be  so  variable  and  uncertain  in  action  that 
you  could  never  tell  whether  or  not  they  would  use  them. 
Men  may  not  act  with  unerring  uniformity  under  given 
man-determined  conditions,  but  then,  neither  does  any- 
thing else.  In  general,  the  rules  of  political  engineering 
will  no  doubt  be  subject  to  exception.  But  what  of  that? 
The  same  can  be  said  of  all  other  branches  of  engineer- 
ing. An  institution  will  not  always  work  in  just  the  way 
its  designers  intended.  But  neither  will  a  machine.  No, 
the  general  methods  of  adapting  means  to  ends  are  the 
same  amid  complex  as  amid  simple  conditions.  In  either 
case  there  is  nothing  to  do  but  follow  the  evidence.  Of 
course,  it  would  be  very  pleasant  if  human  nature  were 
so  very  simple  and  certain  in  action  that  a  few  easily 
discovered  rules  could  be  universally  depended  upon  to 
make  it  work  properly.  But  since  it  is  not  so,  and  since 
in  any  event  those  who  would  improve  human  conditions 
have  nothing  else  to  work  with,  there  is  nothing  to  do 
but  formulate  rules  as  nearly  universal  as  we  can,  and 
then  by  degrees  subject  their  exceptions  more  and  more 
to  rule.  A  similar  procedure  is  necessary  in  all  other 
branches  of  engineering.     Why  not  in  political? 


10^   AMfiiliCANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

Tradition  no  Substitute  for  Reason.  Again  it  may 
be  contended  tliat  custom  and  tradition  are  very  good 
substitutes  for  political  engineering;  that  they  embody 
the  experience  of  past  generations  and  automatically  adapt 
human  institutions  to  human  nature ;  and  man's  continued 
existence  upon  this  earth  may  be  cited  as  proof  that  tasks 
greater  than  human  nature  is  adapted  to  bear  have  not 
been  imposed  upon  it.  But  this  contention,  and  it  is  one 
I  have  often  heard  made,  proves  the  wrong  conclusion. 
For  the  object  of  human  action  is  not  mere  existence — 
it  is  happy  existence — the  happiest  existence  compatible 
with  terrestrial  conditions.  The  fact  that  man  still  ex- 
ists on  the  earth  merely  proves  that  he  has  not  so  ill 
adapted  his  practices  to  the  conditions  of  his  life  as  to 
cause  his  extinction.  The  mole  and  the  beetle  have 
done  as  well  as  that.  They  exist  also  and  mere  existence 
is  enough  for  them.  But  it  is  time  man  raised  himself 
above  moles  and  beetles;  time  he  became  dissatisfied 
with  mere  existence;  time  he  learned  what  the  object 
of  existence  is,  and  adapted  the  means  available  to  its 
attainment.  Many  human  institutions  are  wretchedly 
adapted  to  the  attainment  of  that  object,  and  among  them 
the  institutions  of  monarchy,  slavery  and  capitalism  are 
not  the  least.  I  have  already  suggested  some  of  the 
reasons  for  this,  and  in  the  case  of  capitalism  will 
later  become  more  specific. 


V 
WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY? 

Man  as  an  Adapter  of  Means  to  Ends.  There  is 
probably  nothing  in  the  field  of  human  experience  more 
familiar  than  the  process  of  doing  things  or  attempting 
to  do  them.  Life  is  made  up  of  one  task  after  another. 
When  we  look  about  us  and  observe  how  sensible  men 
go  about  this  business  of  doing  things,  we  notice  that 
they  always  try  to  find  the  shortest,  easiest,  least  risky 
and  troublesome  way  of  doing  them.  That  is,  in  adapt- 
ing means  to  their  ends  they  do  not  take  the  first  means 
which  happens  to  occur  to  them.  They  use  discrimina- 
tion, and  select  from  among  the  means  available  those 
which  will  secure  the  object  they  seek  with  the  least 
effort  and  risk. 

This  faculty  of  effectively  adapting  means  to  ends  is 
almost  exclusively  a  human  quality.  Animals  have  it  in 
a  primitive  form  only.  They  are  good  at  it  only  in 
those  cases  in  which  their  ancestors  were  good  at  it  also. 
Their  operations  are  in  the  nature  of  inherited  instinc- 
tive reactions :  and  as  long  as  an  animal  meets  those  con- 
ditions alone  which  his  instincts  are  designed  to  meet  he 
gets  along  very  well.  In  meeting  all  sorts  of  new  and 
complex  conditions,  however,  a  higher,  more  complex 
and  flexible  faculty  than  instinct  is  needed,  and  man  is 
the  only  animal  which  possesses  it  in  any  marked  degree. 
This  faculty  is  intelligence  or  reason,  and  ability  to  adapt 
means  to  ends  depends  upon  its  possession.  Unintelli- 
gent men  when  they  meet  new  conditions  act  much  like 
animals.    They  are  guided  by  mere  habit  of  mind  instead 

103 


104    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

of  by  reason,  and  hence  are  less  successful  in  adapting 
means  to  ends. 

Greatest  Human  Happiness  a  Special  Case  of  an 
End.  This  unique  power  of  adapting  means  to  ends 
is  a  characteristic  of  human  nature  of  peculiar  value  to 
the  political  engineer.  It  is  one  of  his  greatest  assets,  just 
as  for  instance  the  high  tensile  strength  of  steel  is  one  of 
the  great  assets  of  the  mechanical  engineer.  And  just 
as  the  mechanical  engineer  should  learn  as  much  as  possi- 
ble about  how  to  use  this  physical  asset  in  accomplishing 
his  ends,  so  the  political  engineer  should  learn  as  much  as 
possible  about  how  to  use  the  great  asset  of  human  in- 
telligence in  accomplishing  the  end  of  human  happiness. 
For  the  greatest  possible  happiness  of  society  in  this 
world  is  merely  a  special  case  of  an  end ;  it  is  an  object 
to  be  accomplished  by  the  proper  selection  of  means,  the 
same  as  making  good  griddle  cakes,  or  raising  a  bumper 
crop  of  corn  on  the  farm;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  any 
other  end,  man's  success  in  attaining  it  will  depend  upon 
how  consistently  and  persistently  he  uses  his  reason  to 
select  the  means  best  fitted  to  attain  it. 

Efficiency  a  Measure  of  Success  in  Adapting  Means 
to  Ends.  Now  the  mental  processes  of  science  are 
usually  no  more  than  refinements  of  the  mental  processes 
of  every-day  life.  They  are  more  accurate,  more  dis- 
criminating, and  more  practical  ways  of  thinking  about 
things.  And  this  idea  of  success  or  effectiveness  in 
adapting  means  to  ends  has,  in  the  engineering  sciences, 
been  refined  into  the  idea  of  efficiency. 

For  instance,  it  is  important  for  the  man  who  is  run- 
ning a  steam  plant  to  get  as  much  energy  out  of  his  coal 
as  he  can.  It  is  possible  to  calculate  the  maximum 
energy  which  a  ton  of  coal  of  given  quality  will  yield 
through  the  agency  of  a  boiler  and  steam  engine.     The 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        105 

ratio  or  relation  between  the  energy  actually  obtained 
from  a  ton  of  coal  in  a  given  steam  plant  to  this  maxi- 
mum possible  energy  is  called  the  efficiency  of  the  steam 
plant  as  a  whole.  It  is  the  efficiency  of  utilization  of 
coal.  This  is,  of  course,  only  one  of  numberless 
kinds  of  efficiency  with  which  engineers  have  to  deal, 
but  wherever  met  with,  efficiency  possesses  an  invariable 
characteristic,  well  illustrated  by  this  example.  It  is 
always  a  ratio  or  relation  between  two  magnitudes,  and 
is  actually  or  theoretically  representable  by  a  number,  a 
number  increasing  as  means  are  better,  decreasing  as 
they  are  worse,  adapted  to  their  end. 

The  end  of  the  political  engineer  being  merely  a  spe- 
cial case  of  an  end  in  general,  the  concept  of  efficiency  in 
adapting  means  to  it  is  entirely  applicable,  and  I  wish  to 
point  out  in  this  chapter  how  this  concept  may  be  use- 
fully applied  to  our  particular  issue.  I  wish  to  try  to 
present  a  clear,  discriminating  and  practical  way  of 
thinking  about  the  great  task  of  men  in  directing  their 
efforts  to  producing  useful  means  and  applying  them  to 
the  generation  of  happiness.  This  is  the  more  important 
because  the  prevailing  methods  of  presentation  are  in 
many  respects  quite  misleading,  obscure  and  impractical, 
often  indeed  leading  men  away  from  their  end  instead  of 
toward  it. 

And  at  the  outset  three  points  require  particular  atten- 
tion, because  under  prevailing  methods  of  thinking,  they 
do  not  get  it. 

First:  There  is  no  use  adapting  means  to  the  wrong 
end,  even  if  it  has  a  direct  bearing  on  the  end  sought.  In 
seeking  his  goal  the  political  engineer  cannot  be  content 
with  side  tracks  or  way  stations.  He  must  go  through 
to  his  terminus.  He  cannot  stop  half-way  and  trust  to 
chance  for  the  rest  of  it.  He  cannot,  like  the  political 
economist,  for  instance,  point  out  the  (commercially) 
best  ways  of  producing  wealth,  and  stop  there,  leaving  the 


106    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

question  of  the  application  of  wealth  to  the  production 
of  happiness  unattended  to.  If  he  does  this,  if  he,  like 
the  economist,  adapts  his  means  to  a  proximate  end  only, 
if  he  mistakes  a  way  station  for  his  goal,  he  is  going  to  fail 
in  his  quest  as  completely  as  the  commercial  economist 
fails.  H-e  will  be  like  the  miser  who  starves  in  a  garret 
worshiping  his  gold,  forgetting  what  might  be  ac- 
complished by  its  use;  he  will  sacrifice  his  end  to  his 
means ;  he  will  be  so  intent  on  attaining  an  intermediate 
point  in  his  journey  that  he  will  fail  altogether  in  attain- 
ing the  end  of  it. 

Second :  There  must  be  no  mistaking  the  means  to  be 
employed.  Those  means  are  human  efforts.  It  is  human 
labor  as  measured  by  time  and  trouble,  human  life  in 
terms  of  its  duration  and  toilsomeness  that  must  be  ex- 
pended economically — made  to  accomplish  all  that  is 
possible.  It  is  no  mere  material  thing.  It  is  not  money 
or  wealth  or  land  or  anything  of  that  kind  which  is  to 
be  economized,  except  as  economy  and  efficiency  in  the 
use  of  such  things  represents  economy  and  efficiency 
in  the  use  (fi  human  life  and  labor.  These  material  things 
are  not  in  themselves  representable  in  terms  of  happiness 
or  unhappiness.  Therefore  they  do  not  -enter  into  either 
term  of  the  ratio  which  represents  the  kind  of  efficiency 
the  political  engineer  is  after — the  kind  that  is  of  primary 
interest  to  society. 

Third:  If  success  is  to  be  attained,  thoroughness  in 
political  engineering  is  as  necessary  as  in  mechanical  or 
civil  engineering.  In  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  rule 
of  thumb  precepts  cannot  take  the  place  of  the  scientific 
formulation  of  principles;  and  the  principles  of  utility 
like  those  of  mechanics  must  be  expressed  in  terms,  not 
of  sentiment,  but  of  reason.  They  must  represent  judg- 
ments, not  opinions.  They  must  express  not  what  some 
one  feels,  or  believes,  but  what  the  evidence  indicates. 
For  thousands  of  years  men  have  tried  to  make  pious 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        107 

precepts  take  the  place  of  a  scientific  system  of  morals. 
In  the  western  world  for  generations  such  precepts  have 
been  daily  impressed  upon  the  attention  of  youth,  in  the 
home,  in  the  church,  and  in  the  school.  Most  of  these 
precepts  are  admirable,  and  should  continue  to  be 
emphasized;  but  they  do  not  themselves  constitute  an 
adequate  education  in  morals,  any  more  than  analogous 
mechanical  precepts,  however  admirable,  would  constitute 
an  education  in  mechanical  engineering.  Nothing  is 
more  essential  to-day  than  moral  education,  but  it  is  not 
to  be  had  by  increasing  th-e  frequency  of  iteration  of  the 
precepts  of  the  past.  If  a  thousand  iterations  per  annum 
have  not  brought  the  results  desired,  ten  thousand  itera- 
tions will  not  bring  it.  As  adequate  guides  to  the  conduct 
of  nations  and  of  society  these  precepts  have  been 
weighed  in  the  balance  and  found  wanting.  To  take  but 
one  example  in  a  multitude,  they  have  proved  inadequate 
to  prevent  the  present  war,  and  they  are  inadequate  to 
prevent  another  one.  To  render  morals  as  effective  as 
engineering  we  must  build  it  upon  the  same  foundations 
of  reason.  We  must  learn  to  think  about  the  problem 
of  generating  happiness  by  means  of  effort  in  the  same 
cool,  calculating  and  scientific  spirit  that  we  think  about 
the  generation  of  power  by  means  of  coal. 

Efficiency  of  Utilization.  The  kind  of  efficiency  of 
primary  interest  to  society  is  efficiency  of  utilization  of 
effort,  which  to  save  words  may  be  called  simply  efficien- 
cy of  utilization.  It  is  the  ratio  between  the  happiness 
obtainable  by  human  effort,  and  the  price  which  humanity 
pays  for  that  happiness  in  terms  of  time  and  trouble.  It 
is  a  ratio  well  adapted  to  measure  society's  efficiency  in 
the  utilization  of  means,  and  it  is  one  of  the  duties  of 
the  political  engineer  to  show  how  it  may  be  advanta- 
geously increased. 

In  order  to  see  the  whole  matter  clearly,  however,  it 


108    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  ;S 

is  necessary  to  decompos<;  this  efficiency  into  others  more 
concrete ;  to  discriminate  the  factors  of  which  it  is  made 
up;  just  as  in  figuring  on  the  total  efficiency  of  a  steam 
plant  it  is  necessary  to  decompose  it,  and  thus  discrim- 
inate between  the  efficiency  with  which  the  boiler  makes 
steam,  and  that  with  which  the  engine  uses  it.  In  this 
chapter  no  effort  will  be  made  to  carry  this  decomposition 
very  far,  although  it  is  capable  of  indefinite  decomposi- 
tion, reaching  finally  to  the  kinds  of  efficiencies  familiar 
to  engineers  to-day.  All  that  will  be  attempted  here 
will  be  to  show  the  first  division  or  two,  enough  to  serve 
as  a  guide  in  certain  discussions  soon  to  follow,  and  to 
reveal  certain  fundamental  defects  in  prevailing  methods 
of  thinking  about  these  problems. 

The  Factors  of  Efficiency  of  Utilization.  The  most 
convenient  division  of  efficiency  of  utilization  is  into 
three  parts,  each  corresponding  to  a  stage  in  the  process 
of  producing  happiness  through  effort.  While  in  some 
cases  the  first  or  third  of  these  stages  can  be  left  out, 
there  are  in  general  three : 

First,  wealth  (and  other  man-created  means  to  happi- 
ness follow  the  same  rule)  must  be  produced.  The  ratio 
of  the  amount  of  wealth  produced  to  the  effort  or  labor 
required  to  produce  it,  represents  efficiency  of  production. 

Second,  the  wealth  so  produced  must  be  applied  to 
generating  happiness,  or  to  the  equivalent  object  of 
preventing  unhappiness.  In  thus  applying  it  wealth  is 
consumed,  sometimes  quickly,  sometimes  slowly.  The 
ratio  of  the  amount  of  happiness  secured  in  the  con- 
sumption of  wealth  to  the  amount  of  wealth  consumed 
in  securing  it,  represents  efficiency  of  consumption. 

If  there  were  only  one  person  in  the  world,  or  if 
the  individuals  of  the  human  race  were  completely 
isolated   from   one   another,   each   consuming   what   it 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        109 

produced,  these  two  kinds  of  efficiency  would  constitute 
the  primary  division  of  efficiency  of  utilization. 

But  the  existence  of  society  as  a  more  or  less  inter- 
dependent assemblage  of  beings  giving  rise  to  the  pos- 
sibility of  transfer  and  exchange  of  service  (or  dis- 
service) brings  another  factor  into  the  problem.  The 
wealth  produced  by  the  efforts  of  mankind  can  be  dis- 
tributed for  purposes  of  consumption  in  a  numberless 
variety  of  ways,  and  obviously  the  happiness  produced 
by  consumption  under  these  varying  modes  of  distribu- 
tion will  vary.  Therefore  a  third  kind  of  efficiency  enters 
into  the  problem  of  utilization,  of  an  importance  equal  to 
the  first  two,  namely  efficiency  of  distribution,  which  is 
the  ratio  of  the  usefulness  of  an  actual  distribution  to  that 
of  the  distribution  of  maximum  usefulness. 

To  illustrate  concretely  the  connection  between  the 
factors  of  efficiency  of  utilization  of  effort,  let  us  com- 
pare them  with  similar  factors  of  the  utilization  of  coal. 

Thus  the  most  convenient  division  of  efficiency  of 
coal  utilization  is  into  three  parts,  each  corresponding 
to  a  stage  in  the  process  of  producing  mechanical  energy 
from  coal.  While  in  some  cases  the  third  of  these  stages 
can  be  left  out,  th^re  are  in  general  three: 

First,  steam  must  be  produced.  The  ratio  of  the 
amount  of  steam  produced,  at  the  pressure  required,  to 
the  coal  required  to  produce  it  represents  the  efficiency  of 
production  of  steam  in  the  boiler. 

Second,  the  steam  so  produced  must  be  applied  to 
generating  energy  in  which  process  it  is  condensed,  or 
its  capacity  to  produce  energy  otherwise  consumed.  The 
ratio  of  the  amount  of  energy  secured  in  the  consumption 
of  steam  to  the  amount  of  steam  consumed  represents 
the  efficiency  of  consumption  of  steam  in  the  engine. 

If  a  given  steam  plant  consists  of  only  one  boiler  and 
one  engine,  these  two  kinds  of  efficiency  constitute  the 
primary  division  of  efficiency  of  utilization  of  coal.    But 


110   AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

if  there  are  a  number  of  boilers  and  engines,  so  that  the 
steam  may  be  distributed  in  a  variety  of  ways  among 
them,  a  third  kind  of  efficiency  enters  into  the  problem 
of  utilization,  namely,  efficiency  of  distribution,  which  is 
the  ratio  of  the  energy-producing  capacity  of  an  actual 
distribution  to  that  of  the  distribution  of  maximum 
capacity. 

The  three  ideas  of  efficiency  of  production,  efficiency 
of  consumption,  and  efficiency  of  distribution  can  be  used 
in  as  practical  and  concrete  a  way  by  the  political  engineer 
to  increase  the  happiness  resulting  from  human  effort 
as  they  are  used  by  the  mechanical  engineer  to  increase 
the  energy  generated  from  coal.  To  permit  subsequent 
illustration  of  some  ways  of  doing  this,  and  also  to 
correct  some  prevailing  misconceptions,  a  brief  discussion 
of  each  kind  of  efficiency  will  be  desirabl-e. 

Commercial  Efficiency.  But  first  it  will  be  best  to 
say  a  little  something  about  a  kind  of  efficiency  more 
familiar  than  any  yet  mentioned,  a  kind  which  is  com- 
monly confused  with  efficiency  of  production. 

Under  capitalism  most  productive  operations  are 
carried  on  for  the  purpose  of  making  money  and,  other 
things  being  equal,  money  will  be  made  most  sucessfully 
when  a  product  of  maximum  money  value  is  produced 
at  a  minimum  money  cost.  From  this  ideal  of  money 
making  arises  the  idea  of  what  may  be  called  commercial 
efficiency,  namely,  the  ratio  of  the  value  in  money  of  a 
product  or  service,  to  the  cost  in  money  of  producing 
or  procuring  it.  This  is  the  kind  of  efficiency  that  we 
hear  so  much  about  to-day.  This  is  what  all  the  efficiency 
engineers  and  manufacturers  are  striving  for.* 

♦They  seek  commercial  efficiency  only  because  it  is  one  of 
the  factors  of  acquisitive  efficiency;  but  as  the  analysis  of  the 
latter  is  not  necessary  in  this  particular  discussion,  it  will  not 
be  undertaken  here. 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        Ill 

! 

At  first  glance  it  might  appear  that  this  is  just  what 
society  as  a  whole  should  strive  for.  Surely  it  seems 
best  for  the  community  that  things  should  be  made  as 
cheaply  as  possible,  so  that  profits  may  be  liberal  and 
prices  be  low;  and  you  will  find  that  everywhere  among 
business  men,  statesmen  and  economists  the  opinion  pre- 
vails that  the  commercial  efficiency  which  is  such  a  good 
thing  for  the  business  man  is  the  best  possible  thing 
for  the  community  as  a  whole. 

But  let  us  pause  a  moment  and  look  into  the  matter 
a  little  further.  Unless  money  is  the  ultimate  object  of 
human  effort  there  is  likely  to  be  a  leak  in  the  logic 
of  commercial  efficiency ;  for  remember  that  whenever  a 
means  is  pursued  as  an  end  the  end  itself  is  likely  to  be 
overlooked,  and  if  money  is  not  itself  the  end  of  human 
effort  it  is  best  not  to  be  too  keen  in  the  pursuit  of  it,  lest 
we  get  the  shadow  instead  of  the  substance  of  life. 

Productive  Efficiency.  Suppose  in  order  to  get  a 
furth-er  insight  into  the  nature  of  human  efficiency  we 
select  an  example  where  money  does  not  enter.  Suppose 
we  go  back  once  more  to  colonial  times  in  America  and 
consider  the  -efforts  of  a  farmer  of  those  days  to  get  a 
living  for  himself  and  family  by  direct  cooperation  with 
nature.  These  farmers'  families  practiced  individualism 
in  production — they  produced  for  themselves  alone  (just 
as  society,  taken  collectively,  does),  and  the  question  of 
money  was  practically  eliminated  from  consideration. 

Suppose  now  that  farmer  Jonathan,  having  spent  his 
youth  in  plowing  with  a  wooden  plow  inherited  from  his 
grandfather,  secures  a  fine  iron  affair  from  the  village 
blacksmith,  making  payment,  as  was  the  custom  in  those 
days,  in  corn,  cider  or  flax,  or  in  the  labor  of  himself 
and  oxen.  He  is  willing  to  pay  the  price  because  with 
his  new  plow  he  is  able,  let  us  say,  to  plow  twice  as  much 
ground  in  a  day  and  plow  it  deeper  and  easier  than  with 


112    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

the  old  one.  Thus  with  a  less  amount  of  labor,  he  is  able 
to  accomplish  twice  as  much  as  before  toward  raising  a 
crop.  He  has  evidently  made  a  gain  of  some  kind,  but 
can  we  say  he  has  gained  in  efficiency  ?  Not  in  commer- 
cial efficiency  certainly,  for  no  question  of  money  is 
involved.  What  he  has  done,  however,  is  to  secure  a 
greater  consumptive  value  at  a  less  cost  in  time  and 
trouble,  an  increased  power  of  supporting  life  and  its 
enjoyment  at  a  decreased  expenditure  of  life  and  labor. 
H-e  has  thus  increased  the  ratio  of  the  consumptive  power 
of  his  product  to  the  labor  cost  of  producing  it,  and  this 
ratio  is  that  to  which  we  have  assigned  the  name  pro- 
ductive efficiency. 

Comparison  of  Commercial  with  Productive  Effi- 
ciency. There  is  thus  a  marked  difference  between 
commercial  efficiency  and  productive  efficiency.  One  is 
the  ratio  of  a  money  value  to  a  money  cost ;  the  other  is 
the  ratio  of  a  consumptive  value  to  a  productive  cost. 
One  places  a  sum  of  money  in  the  numerator,  and  an- 
other sum  of  money  in  the  denominator ;  the  other  places 
a  power  to  produce  human  happiness  in  the  numerator, 
and  an  expenditure  of  human  effort  in  the  denominator. 
One  is  expressible  in  terms  of  dollars,  the  other  in  terms 
of  life  and  of  the  well  or  ill  condition  thereof.  It  is 
obvious  then  that  productive  efficiency  is  more  closely 
related  to  what  men  are  really  seeking,  to  the  true  end 
of  life,  than  commercial  efficiency;  and  hence  it  is 
important  that  statesmen,  economists  and  the  people 
generally  should  cease  confusing  the  two. 

The  most  important  difference  between  the  two  kinds 
of  efficiencies  is  that  the  commercial  kind  recognizes  no 
difference  between  inanimate  things  and  human  beings 
as  agents  of  production.  Man  is  classed  simply  as  one 
kind  of  a  machine.  No  distinction  is  made  between  the 
sentient   and   the   non-sentient    factors   of   production. 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        113 

I  . 

Cheapness  is  sought  at  any  cost — at  the  cost  of  the  things 
that  make  Hfe  worth  living  if  need  be.  Of  course,  if 
wealth  or  money  is  all  we  are  after,  commercial  efficiency 
is  all  w€  need  consider,  but  if  we  are  after  happiness  we 
must  turn  our  attention  to  increasing  productive  effi- 
ciency. The  two  kinds  of  efficiency  have  a  relation  to  one 
another,  but  that  should  not  lead  us  to  confound  them. 
An  increase  in  productive  efficiency  can,  if  proper  means 
are  taken,  always  be  reflected  in  an  increase  in  commer- 
cial efficiency;  but  the  reverse  is  not  the  case.  Indeed 
an  increase  in  commercial  efficiency  may  represent  an 
inevitable  decrease  in  productive  efficiency. 

Examples  of  the  pursuit  of  commercial  at  the  cost  of 
productive  efficiency  are  to  be  met  on  every  hand,  but 
they  are  especially  common  where  labor  is  cheap.  This 
is  natural,  because  where  the  human  machine  is  to  be  had 
at  a  low  money  cost  a  non-human  machine  which  will  do 
the  same  work  at  a  lower  labor  cost  but  a  higher  money 
cost  is  not  acceptable  under  our  system  of  commercialism, 
which  regards  money  as  more  important  than  the  only 
thing  that  money  is  really  useful  for. 

In  China  for  example  there  is  no  demand  for  coal 
loading  machinery  because  the  cost  of  coolies  for  loading 
the  coal  is  less  (in  money,  but  not  in  labor)  than  the  cost 
of  operating  the  required  machinery. 

One  great  problem  before  political  engineering  then 
is  to  replace  the  ideal  of  commercial  with  that  of  pro- 
ductive efficiency;  to  so  organize  social  affairs  that 
society  as  a  whole  may  have,  not  only  the  incentive  which 
farmer  Jonathan  had  to  seek  productive  efficiency,  but 
may  be  able  to  reflect  any  increase  in  that  efficiency  in  an 
increase  of  leisure  and  power  of  consumption  throughout 
the  community,  just  as  any  improvement  in  farming 
methods  gave  farmer  Jonathan's  family  not  only  more 
time  to  do  other  things  than  work,  but  more  to  eat  and 
wear  as  well. 


114    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  gr^at  human  family  should 
not  follow  the  plan  practiced  in  the  family  of  farmer 
Jonathan.  In  collective,  as  in  individualist,  production  an 
increase  of  consumption  should  be  made  to  accompany  a 
decrease  of  human  effort.  Improved  machinery  and 
methods  should  replace  human  toil.  This  can  be  done, 
but  the  way  to  do  it  belongs  to  another  chapter. 

Productive  Efficiency  and  Americanism.  It  must 
be  admitted  that  productive  efficiency  is  not  a  traditional 
Am-erican  ideal.  It  is  no  part  of  Americanism  as  yet.  But 
then,  it  is  not  the  traditional  ideal  of  any  other  country 
either.  As  a  collective  ideal  it  is  unknown  to  the  world. 
There  is  no  reason  why  the  United  States  should  not  be 
the  first  gr^at  nation  to  consciously  adopt  it,  as  she  was 
the  first  to  adopt  democracy.  Indeed,  there  is  every 
reason  why  she  should  do  so,  since  it  is  one  of  the  kinds 
of  efficiency  essential  to  successful  democracy.  All 
capitalistic  countries,  it  is  true,  have  adopted  the  ideal 
of  commercial  efficiency,  because  that  is  a  kind  well 
adapted  to  serve  oligarchy,  industrial  or  political. 
Germany  has  been  particularly  successful  in  its  pursuit, 
and  well  indeed  has  it  served  her  oligarchs  in  war,  as  in 
all  other  branches  of  industry — at  least  temporarily. 
What  it  has  done  for  the  rest  of  the  world  is  so  obvious 
as  to  require  no  comment.  But  while  Germany  has 
delusions  of  her  own,  and  has  suffered  and  inflicted 
suffering  on  account  of  them,  she  has  never  been  subject 
to  the  delusion  that  governments  should  not  attempt  to 
interfere  constructively  in  the  economic  activities  of 
nations.  This  is  the  main  reason  why  she  has  so  far 
outstripped  in  efficiency  England  and  America,  who  are 
just  beginning  to  emerge  from  their  subjection  to  that 
disastrous  theory. 

In  learning  the  lesson  of  efficiency,  however,  America 
must  discriminate  between  the  productive  and  comiher- 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?         115 

cial  varieties.  Not  otherwise  can  she  apply  the  ksson  to 
the  service  of  democracy.  Oligarchy  is  interested  in 
productive  efficiency  only  as  a  means  of  serving  oligarchs. 
Hence  the  expression  of  it  in  the  warped  terms  of  com- 
mercialism. By  the  practice  of  a  little  thought  and  dis- 
crimination the  people  can  turn  to  their  own  service  the 
instrument  now  so  successful  in  the  service  of  capitalists 
and  kings.  The  pursuit  of  productive  efficiency  may  not 
be  an  American  nor  a  European  practice,  but  it  is  a 
reasonable  and  a  useful  practice,  and  should  therefore  be 
made  characteristic  of  Americanism.  And  this  statement 
applies  as  much  to  consumptive  and  distributive  efficiency 
as  it  does  to  the  productive  kind. 

Efficiency  of  Consumption.  There  is  nothing  corre- 
sponding to  the  idea  of  consumptive  efficiency  to  be 
found  in  books  treating  of  political  economy,  nor  in 
those  on  scientific  management,  so  many  of  which  have 
been  issued  in  the  last  few  years.  This  is  because  the 
economist  and  efficiency  expert,  fixing  their  attention  on 
wealth,  have  somehow  got  the  whole  problem  of  useful- 
ness reversed.  To  them  consumption  is  merely  a  means 
to  production.  That  is  why  the  efficiency  engineer  ad- 
vises the  capitalist  to  see  that  his  employee  is  well  fed 
and  housed  and  made  contented.  It  is  for  the  same 
reason  that  he  would  advise  him  to  feed  and  shelter  his 
horse  well  and  keep  him  contented.  It  is  a  means  of 
making  the  employee  work  and  make  money  faster  for 
his  employer.  It  is  ''good  business"  as  the  saying  is,  as 
good  as  keeping  an  engine  well  oiled  and  cared  for.  That 
is  also  why  the  economist  emphasizes  the  distinction 
between  productive  and  non-productive  consumption — a 
distinction  which  needs  great  emphasis  when  producing 
wealth  is  the  end  and  consuming  it  the  means,  but  not 
otherwise. 

Of  course  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  economist  has 


116    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

this  matter  so  badly  turned  round,  but  it  teaches  a 
valuable  lesson.  It  illustrates  what  happens  when  men 
try  to  direct  human  effort  without  knowing  what  end 
it  is  to  be  directed  to.  Even  if  by  some  happy  chance 
they  start  in  the  right  direction  they  get  side-tracked 
at  some  way  station  and  stagnate  there. 

In  political  engineering,  consumptive  is  as  important 
as  productive  efficiency,  just  as  in  steam  engineering  it 
is  as  important  to  hav-e  the  engine  consume  steam 
efficiently  as  to  have  the  boiler  produce  it  efficiently. 
For  the  steam  engineer  to  stop  half  way,  to  consider 
only  the  efficiency  of  steam  production  and  leave  the 
efficiency  of  its  consumption  out  of  account,  would  be 
a  very  unreasonable  proceeding,  as  unreasonable  as  the 
proceeding  of  the  economist  when  he  considers  only  the 
efficiency  of  wealth  production,  ignoring  the  efficiency 
of  its  consumption.  It  is  another  problem  of  the  polit- 
ical engineer  then  to  do  what  he  can  to  remedy  this 
further  oversight  in  modern  political  thinking — ^to  point 
out  the  most  useful  ways  of  consuming  wealth  as  well 
as  the  most  useful  ways  of  producing  it. 

Contrast  between  Productive  and  Consumptive  Effi- 
ciency. Although  both  productive  and  consumptive 
efficiency  are  essential  to  efficiency  of  utilization  they  are 
as  a  rule  (having  some  exceptions)  to  be  sought  by 
quite  distinct  methods. 

To  produce  efficiently,  highly  developed  and  complex 
machinery  is  required,  and  the  operatives  thereof,  dur- 
ing working  hours,  must  consult,  not  their  own  in- 
dividual desires,  but  the  necessities  imposed  by  their 
cooperation  with  the  machinery  of  production,  me- 
chanical and  social.  Production  by  complex  machinery 
is  necessarily  socialized,  and  in  socialized  production  the 
producer  must  submit  himself  to  discipline,  and  become 
a  cog  in  the  machine. 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?         117 

To  consume  efficiently,  on  the  contrary,  the  simpler 
the  means  the  better,  and  the  reasonable  immediate  de- 
sires of  the  individual  must  determine  his  acts.  He  must 
do  as  he  likes,  instead  of  what  the  loom  on  the  lathe  or 
the  office  boss  likes.  To  be  a  cog  in  a  machine  would 
spoil  the  fun  which  is  the  object  of  consumption — for 
consumption  aims  at  ends,  while  production  aims  only 
at  means. 

r^fficiency  then  requires  socialism  and  complexity  in 
production,  and  individualism  and  simplicity  in  con- 
sumption. -^Socialism  in  consumption  is  as  inefficient 
as  individualism  in  production.  And  the  crude  and 
simple  wooden  plow  of  farmer  Jonathan  is  as  poor  an 
instrument  of  production,  as  the  luxurious  and  complex 
steam  yacht  of  a  modem  plutocrat  is  an  instrument 
of  consumption. 

In  seeking  individualism  and  simplicity  in  consump- 
tion the  socialist  is  not  doing  anything  required  by 
orthodox  socialism,  but  he  is  doing  something  required 
by  consistency.  For  if  socialism  is  to  be  sought  because 
it  is  useful,  then  individualism  and  simplicity  in  con- 
sumption must  be  sought  because  they  are  the  utilitarian 
supplements  to  socialism  and  complexity  in  production. 

Relation  between  Consumptive  Efficiency  and  Con- 
sumptive Rate.  Having  seen  that  it  is  as  important  to 
consume  as  to  produce  wealth  economically  let  us  con- 
sider a  little  further  one  of  the  foregoing  factors  of  con- 
sumptive efficiency.  Other  things  being  equal,  it  is  obvi- 
ously best  to  produce  wealth  with  the  least  effort  possible : 
and  similarly,  it  is  best  to  produce  happiness  with  the 
least  effort  possible  also.  The  easier  it  is  produced  the 
more  we  all  can  have  of  it,  and  the  less  in  time  and 
trouble  we  shall  have  to  pay  for  it.  Hence  the  maximum 
production  of  happiness  with  the  minimum  consumption 
of  wealth  represents  the  ideal  efficiency  of  consumption. 


118    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  I 

The  higher  the  efficiency  of  consumption  the  more  of 
life  can  be  spent  in  producing  happiness  and  the  less  in 
producing  mere  wealth,  for  the  less  we  have  to  con- 
sume in  order  to  be  happy  the  less  we  shall  have  to 
produce.  ^This  is  the  philosophy  of  the  simple  life. 
Simple,  easily  satisfied  tastes  are  the  most  useful? 
Tl^uxunous  liie  is  inefficient  life.  It  is  wasteiiui  ot  numan 
effort.  A  high  rate  of  consurription  requires  a  high  rate 
of  production  to  maintain  it.  Luxuries  of  high  labor 
cost  ought  never  to  be  produced,  because  while  they 
may  be  sources  of  much  happiness  to  the  few  who  can 
afford  them,  the  same  effort  directed  to  the  gratification 
of  the  simpler  tastes  of  the  many  would  produce  a 
greater  sum  total  of  happiness. 

Very  high  rates  of  consumption  then  are  generally 
inefficient.  And  very  low  rates  are  inefficient  also,  but 
for  a  different  reason.  At  very  low  rates  of  consumption, 
at  rates  too  near  the  starvation  or  privation  level,  man 
produces  unhappiness  instead  of  happiness,  and  every 
member  of  the  community  who  is  consuming  at  such 
low  rates  is  therefore  a  debit  instead  of  a  credit  factor 
in  the  great  business  of  producing  happiness.  A  nation 
which  has  enough  such  debit  factors  in  its  population 
is  a  total  failure;  it  is  worse  than  no  nation  at  all, — 
unless  of  course  it  redeems  itself  by  a  more  than  com- 
pensating contribution  to  the  happiness  of  other  nations 
or  to  that  of  posterity. 

Good  reasons  then  can  be  given  why  both  high  and 
low  rates  of  consumption  among  men  are  inefficient; 
from  which  it  follows  that  efficient  rates  are  to  be  found 
only  among  moderate  ones.  Here  is  another  practical 
guide  to  the  political  engineer.  Institutions  which  affect 
society  in  such  a  way  as  to  produce  in  any  marked 
degree  either  very  high  or  very  low  rates  of  constmip- 
tion,  or  both,  are  not  well  adapted  to  attain  the  object  of 
society.     They  are  inefficient  in  accomplishing  one  of 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?         lid 

!  1 

the  essential  steps  in  producing  happiness  through 
effort.  They  are  weak  in  a  vital  spot  and  require  to  be 
replaced  or  reconstructed;  as  much  so  as  a  steam  plant 
so  designed  as  to  waste  a  large  part  of  the  steam  which 
has  been  produced  by  the  boilers  at  the  cost  of  much 
time,  labor,  fuel  and  money. 

Efificiency  of  Distribution.  This  brings  us  to  the 
question  of  efficiency  of  distribution,  and  illustrates  how 
important  it  is  that  wealth  should  be  distributed  in  an 
efficient  manner.  For  without  proper  distribution 
there  can  be  no  efficient  consumption,  and  hence  pro- 
duction, whose  only  ultimately  useful  object  is  con- 
sumption, is  simply  so  much  labor  lost.  In  particular 
an  institution  which  tends  to  distribute  wealth  among 
the  community  in  a  very  uneven  manner  will  be  ineffi- 
cient distributively,  because  it  will  lead  to  just  those 
conditions  of  high  rates  of  consumption  on  the  one  hand 
and  low  ones  on  the  other  which  make  for  low  con^ 
strmptive  efficiency. 

Suppose  for  instance  there  were  in  a  given  steam 
plant  a  larger  number  of  engines,  and  boilers  with  steam 
capacities  to  match,  and  suppose  the  plant  were  so  run 
that  the  steam  produced  in  the  boilers  were  distributed 
to  the  engines  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  a  few  engines  a 
very  much  greater  amount  of  steam  than  they  could 
efficiently  consume,  and  to  the  great  majority  an  amount 
considerably  less  than  required  for  efficiency.  Would 
it  not  be  plain  that  the  total  efficiency  of  the  plant  would 
be  low,  and  equally  plain  that  the  trouble  was  not 
necessarily  either  with  the  efficiency  of  production  or 
consumption  of  the  units  involved,  but  with  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  method  of  distribution?  If  this  method 
were  so  changed  that  instead  of  giving  some  too  much 
and  some  too  little,  each  engine  received  a  moderate 
amount,  an  amount  adapted  to  its  capacity  for  consump- 


120    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

tion,  the  same  plant  would  obviously  deliver  a  far  greater 
output  of  energy  per  ton  of  coal  burned. 

Relation  of  Capitalism  to  Efficiency  of  Utilization. 

Now  capitalism  is  an  institution  which  produces  just 
this  kind  of  inefficiency  among  the  human  happiness 
generators  which  constitute  society,  and  produces  it 
not  through  any  accident,  or  because  of  some  defect  in 
detail,  but  on  account  of  a  characteristic  inherent  in  its 
very  nature.  This  result  is  a  direct  and  inevitable  con- 
sequence of  the  system  of  payment  for  ownership — a 
system  which  tends  to  make  those  who  own  most  get 
most  and  those  who  own  least  get  least,  and  so  intensi- 
fies inequality  of  ownership,  and  hence  of  consumptive 
rate.  Those  who  say  that  if  wealth  were  equally  distrib- 
uted to-morrow  it  would  in  a  few  years  be  back  in  the 
same  condition  of  inequality  which  prevails  so  con- 
spicuously to-day,  speak  truly;  but  they  are  much  mis- 
taken if  they  think  this  follows  from  some  necessity  of 
human  nature.  The  defect  is  not  in  human  nature,  but 
in  a  human  institution;  not  in  man,  but  only  in  his 
present  way  of  doing  certain  things. 

Imagine  a  farmer  who  in  spreading  fertilizer  over 
his  fields  follows  the  practice  of  capitalistic  communities 
in  spreading  wealth  (when  moderately  applied  an  ex- 
cellent fertilizer  of  happiness)  over  the  community. 
Whenever  he  comes  on  the  field  with  a  fresh  load  of 
fertilizer  he  looks  about,  and  noting  the  irregularity  of 
distribution  resulting  from  his  former  operations,  pro- 
ceeds to  emphasize  that  irregularity  by  adding  most  to 
those  parts  of  the  field  that  already  have  most.  Wherever 
he  sees  a  particularly  large  heap  he  adds  a  particularly 
large  fraction  of  his  load  to  it,  and  wherever  he  sees  a 
small  one  he  makes  a  small  addition  to  it,  and  if  it  is 
particularly  scanty  (which  it  is  in  most  places)  he 
scoops  up  some  of  it  and  adds  it  to  the  larger  heaps.    We 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        121 

!  I 

can  easily  predict  that  such  a  method  would  soon  pro- 
duce a  tremendous  and  constantly  increasing  concentra- 
tion of  fertilizer  in  a  few  places  and  a  corresponding 
scarcity  over  the  bulk  of  the  field.  Any  farmer  who  prac- 
tised this  method  of  distributing  fertilizer  as  a  means  of 
raising  grain  we  should  perhaps  set  down  as  about  as  un- 
reasonable and  inefficient  a  farmer  as  could  be  found. 
And  yet  there  is  a  higher  degree  of  unreason  than  this. 
Suppose  on  perceiving  the  poor  results  of  his  efforts  to 
distribute  his  fertilizer  efficiently  our  irrational  friend 
should  be  heard  to  comment  thus : 

"I've  got  plenty  of  fertilizer  to  cover  this  field  so 
that  no  square  foot  of  it  need  want  enough  to  grow  a 
plentiful  crop  and  yet,  confound  it,  most  of  it  has»too 
littk.  What  can  the  matter  be?  I  figure  the  trouble 
is  in  the  nature  of  things.  It's  simply  a  law  of  nature 
that  some  parts  of  a  field  will  get  more  than  their  share 
and  other  parts  less,  and  I  might  as  well  give  it  up.  It's 
true  some  claim  it's  due  to  my  method  of  putting  the 
stuff  on;  that  if  instead  of  putting  it  on  thickest  where 
it  was  already  thickest,  I  put  it  on  thickest  where  it 
was  thinnest  before,  I'd  get  what  I'm  after.  But  I  don't 
believe  in  such  new  fangled  notions.  My  father  did  it 
this  way  and  my  grandfather  did  it  this  way,  and  that 
proves  it's  the  only  practical  way.  You  can't  get  around 
the  laws  of  nature  by  any  such  artificial  devices,  and 
inequality  in  the  distribution  of  fertilizer  is  a  law  of 
nature." 

Now  I  will  admit  if  you  wanted  to  find  a  farmer  who 
reasoned  like  this  you  would  have  to  go  a  long  way, 
simply  because  it  is  hard  to  find  one  whose  father  and 
grandfather  reasoned  so;  but  if  you  wanted  to  find  an 
economist,  or  a  so-called  "practical  man"  who  reasoned 
like  this,  you  wouldn't  have  to  go  very  far,  because  you 
can  find  many  whose  father  and  grandfather  reasoned 
so.     It's  simply  a  matter  of  custom.    The  principle  of 


122    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

:^ 
distribution  under  capitalism  is  that  employed  by  the 
irrational  and  inefficient  farmer — the  more  a  man  has 
the  more  he  gets.  If  we  take  six  per  cent  as  an  average 
rate  of  interest  the  man  who  already  has  $100,000,000 
invested  gets  $6,000,000  a  year,  the  man  who  has  $1,000,- 
000  gets  $60,000,  the  man  with  $1,000  gets  $60  a  year, 
the  man  with  $100  g-ets  $6  a  year,  and  the  man  with 
nothing  gets  nothing  a  year. 

Moreover  it  is  those  who  own  little  or  nothing  who 
by  their  labor,  mental  or  physical,  create  the  wealth 
which  is  absorbed  by  the  owning  class.  Hence  they  are 
not  so  fortunate  as  merely  to  get  nothing  for  owning 
nothing.  They  get  less  than  nothing  for  owning  nothing. 
As  shown  in  the  second  chapter,  if,  on  the  average,  they 
own  so  little  as  to  receive  less  than  forty  per  cent  of  their 
income  from  ownership  the  sum  total  of  the  process  is 
an  actual  subtraction  from  their  income,  and  the  less 
they  own  the  greater  the  subtraction. 

A  popular  way  of  expressing  this  fact,  so  conspicuous 
in  every  day  experience,  is  in  the  phrase  "Them  as  has, 
gits.'*  But  there  is  a  better  expression  of  it  than  this. 
You  will  find  it  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Mark,  the  25th 
verse :  "He  that  hath  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  Re  that 
hath  not  from  him  shall  be  taken  even  that  which  he 
hath."  Applied  to  knowledge  this  is  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  Mark.  Applied  to  wealth  it  is  the  Gospel  according 
to  Mammon;  and  capitalism,  the  creed  of  Mammon,  so 
applies  it,  providing  that  he  who  owns  to  him  wealth  he 
does  not  produce  shall  be  given,  and  he  who  owns  not 
from  him  wealth  he  produces  shall  be  taken  to  be  given 
to  him  who  owns.  This  is  about  as  close  as  capitalism 
gets  to  Christianity. 

This  in  fact  is  the  inevitable  result  of  paying  a  man 
for  owning  and  in  proportion  to  what  he  owns.  Perhaps 
it  may  be  thought  that  any  one  who  deems  such  a  method 
of  wealth  distribution  an  efficient  one  as  a  means  of 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?         123 

producing  happiness  is  a  very  unreasonable  person,  but 
there  is  a  further  degree  of  unreason,  and  that  is  the 
unreason  of  a  person  who  says  that  because  this  method 
produces  vast  inequaHties  in  wealth  that  no  method 
can  be  d-evised  that  will  not  do  so — who  claims  inequality 
to  be  an  unescapable  law  of  nature  because  it  is  unescap- 
able  under  a  system  peculiarly  well  adapted  to  secure  it. 
Moderate  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  wealth  prob- 
ably will  occur  under  the  best  of  systems.  The  variations 
in  human  abilities  and  habits  will  inevitably  cause  them, 
but  they  are  as  harmless  as  the  slight  inequalities  to  be 
found  in  the  distribution  of  fertilizer  in  a  careful 
farmer's  field.  The  great  and  injurious  inequalities  found 
in  our  society  to-day  are  clearly  due  to  the  method  of 
distribution  which  is  followed,  and  can  be  abolished  by 
abolishing  the  method  and  instituting  one  that  dcves  not 
make  a  man's  income  proportional  to  what  he  already 
possesses. 

The  fact  is  that  owing  to  the  application  of  modern 
-science  to  production,  and  the  partial  and  incidental 
identity  between  commercial  and  productive  efficiency, 
the  present  day  system  of  production,  which  in- 
cludes capitalism,  is  the  best  system  of  production 
known  in  history,  but  owing  to  the  non-application  of 
science  to  distribution,  and  to  the  total  lack  of  identity  / 
between  any  kind  of  efficiency  sought  by  capitalism  and 
distributive  efficiency,  it  is  the  worst  system  of  dis- 
tribution known.*  / 

*  In  this  connection  it  should  be  emphasized  that  when  I  speak 
of  capitalism  as  increasing  productive  efficiency  I  am  really- 
guilty  of  a  verbal  inaccuracy  and  my  statements  should  be  inter- 
preted accordingly.  I  take  this  course,  however,  to  avoid  cir- 
cumlocution. It  is  not  capitalism — the  system  of  payment  for 
ownership — but  the  application  of  science,  which  happens  to  be 
at  present  associated  with  capitalism,  that  increases  it.  There  is 
no  necessary  connection  between  the  two  systems.  Capitalism  is 
not  the  cause  of  the  application  of  science  to  wealth  production. 


124    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

j  — . 

Viewed  in  the  light  of  this  antithesis,  it  contrasts 
strongly  with  the  primitive  conditions  of  colonial  times. 
Individualism  provided  a  wretched  system  of  production 
but  an  admirable  system  of  distribution.  Under  individ- 
ualism distribution  takes  care  of  itself,  each  family 
consuming  what  it  produces,  but  it  cannot  produce  much. 
Under  capitalism  each  family  can  produce  vastly  more, 
but  it  can  no  longer  consume  what  it  produces  nor  the 
equivalent  thereof.  Thus  the  present  system,  while 
enormously  increasing  efficiency  of  production,  destroys 
efficiency  of  distribution. 

Individualism  is  comparable  to  a  method  of  crop 
cultivation  which  can  apply  fertilizer  very  evenly  to  the 
land,  but  spreads  it  too  thinly  and  scantily  to  get  a  good 
crop ;  whereas  capitalism  is  comparable  to  a  method  which 
can  apply  fertilizer  abundantly  to  the  land,  but  piles  it 
in  heaps  instead  of  spreading  it  evenly.  Both  methods 
observe  one  of  the  two  essential  rules  of  cultivation,  but 
neither  observes  them  both,  so  neither  is  successful.  A 
successful  system  of  cultivation  must  combine  the  even 
distribution  of  the  first  method  with  the  abundant  ap- 
plication of  the  second. 

Hence  to  solve  the  economic  problem,  to  free  man- 
kind from  poverty,  what  is  wanted  is  a  system  which 
will  combine  the  productive  efficiency  of  capitalism  with 
the  distributive  efficiency  of  individualism,  a  system 
which  will  apply  science  not  alone  to  production  but  to 

Almost  the  reverse  is  the  case.  The  application  of  science  is  the 
cause  of  the  present  great  development  of  capitalism.  That  sys- 
tem had  existed  in  an  undeveloped  condition  for  ages  prior  to 
the  industrial  revolution  of  the  19th  century,  and  science  which 
in  that  century  revolutionized  industry  incidentally  caused  cap- 
italism to  develop  from  a  child  to  a  giant.  The  best  we  can  say 
of  capitalism  is  that  it  is  a  system  which  permits  of  efficient 
application  of  science  to  the  arts,  and  this  is  greatly  to  its  credit, 
but  it  is  not  the  only  system,  as  evidence  readily  available  can 
sufficiently  indicate. 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        125 

distribution.  Now  socialism  is  simply  the  name  of  an 
industrial  plan  which  has  this  for  its  object,  and  which 
moreover  is  particularly  well  adapted  to  the  attainment 
of  its  object  if  its  details  are  worked  out  properly. 

Capitalism  seems  to  us  an  admirable  system  of  pro- 
duction only  because  we  compare  it  with  the  old  in- 
dividualistic system  which  was  so  very  wretched.  The 
stage  coach  similarly  seemed  an  excellent  system  of 
transportation  compared  with  the  ox  cart,  but  it  seems 
very  different  when  compared  with  the  railroad. 

To  enumerate  the  sources  of  the  productive  ineffi- 
ciency of  capitalism  would  require  a  very  long  list,  but 
they  have  been  classified  by  Bellamy,  who  divided  them 
into  four  categories  as  follows:  "First,  the  waste  by 
mistaken  undertakings;  second,  the  waste  from  the 
competition  and  mutual  hostility  of  those  engaged  in 
industry;  third,  the  waste  by  periodical  gluts  and  crises, 
with  the  consequent  interruptions  of  industry;  fourth, 
the  waste  from  idle  capital  and  labor  at  all  times." 

I  know  of  only  two  attempts  which  have  been  made 
to  compute  the  waste  due  to  capitalism  in  this  country,  by 
which  I  mean  the  loss  of  human  effort  which,  even  with- 
out any  further  improvement  in  mechanical  processes, 
would  be  avoided  by  the  substitution  of  socialism  for 
capitalism  in  the  United  States.  Reeve  in  "The  Cost  of 
Competition"  figures  out  that  the  waste  is  about  75%.  Si- 
mons in  "Wasting  Human  Life"  estimates  it  at  about 
80%.  Both  estimates  no  doubt  are  open  to  criticism. 
Perhaps  the  best  we  can  say  is  that  they  probably  repre- 
sent at  least  the  general  order  of  magnitude  of  the  pro- 
ductive inefficiency  of  capitalism. 

Compared  with  a  reasonable  economic  system,  capital-  I 
ism  is  inefficient  productively,  distributively  and  con-  | 
sumptively.  It  wastes  human  effort  in  the  production  of  l 
means,  it  distributes  those  means  in  such  a  way  as  to  I 
make  impossible  their  effective  adaptation  to  ends,  and  7 


126    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I  -^ 

it  tends  continually  to  increase  man's  needs  instead  of 
decreasing  them.  Its  efficiency  of  utilization  is  there- 
fore very  low.  In  seeking  the  ideal  of  commercial 
efficiency  it  perverts  science,  and  subordinates  the  end 
to  the  means  instead  of  the  means  to  the  end. 

Science  has  demonstrated  that  it  can  make  the  pro- 
ductive rate  of  human  beings  high,  and  if  this  be  so  it 
is  only  necessary  to  so  manage  distribution  that  this  high 
rate  of  production  is  reflected  in  a  corresponding  rate 
of  consumption,  and  the  possibility  of  the  abolition  of 
poverty  itself  is  in  sight.  It  is  the  crowning  indictment 
of  the  present  economic  system  that,  with  science  stand- 
ing ready  to  abolish  poverty  among  men,  capitalism 
through  its  wretched  inefficiency  of  utilization  blocks 
the  path,  and  dooms  the  majority  to  lives  little 
less  laborious  than  in  the  day  of  individualism.  It 
denies  mankind  the  economic  liberty  which  science  has 
proved  its  power  to  bestow  on  a:ny  people  with  intel- 
ligence sufficient  to  remove  the  obstacle  which  it  inter- 
poses. 

Efficiency  and  the  Abolition  of  Poverty.  In  closing 
this  chapter  it  will  be  well  to  indicate  briefly  the  general 
relation  of  efficiency  to  poverty,  since  the  abolition  of 
poverty  is  the  primary  purpose  of  socialism. 

Poverty  is  merely  the  name  for  a  defective  rate  of 
consumption,  and  a  rate  of  consumption  is  defective 
when  it  is  insufficient  to  maintain  a  normal  human 
being  in  a  condition  of  happiness  which  reasonable 
management  of  human  affairs  on  this  earth  would  permit. 

For  the  abolition  of  poverty  in  a  populous  community 
the  four  following  conditions  are  necessary  and  suffi- 
cient : 

(i)     High  efficiency  of  production. 

(2)  High  efficiency  of  distribution. 

(3)  High  efficiency  of  consumption. 


WHAT  IS  EFFICIENCY?        127 

i  I 

(4)  Limitation  of  the  population  to  a  point  which 
will  allow  a  moderate  consumptive  rate  without  re- 
quiring an  inordinate  expenditure  of  labor  to  main- 
tain it. 

The  first  and  fourth  conditions  will  insure  that  an 
abundance  of  readily  produced  wealth  will  be  available 
for  consumption,  the  second  that  each  individual  receives 
his  share  of  this  abundance,  the  third  that  the  individual's 
tastes  and  needs  shall  be  such  that  a  moderate  (or 
preferably  a  low)  rate  of  consumption  shall  suffice  to 
make  him  happy.  It  is  obvious  that  the  higher  the  effi- 
ciencies involved  the  greater  the  poverty-free  popula- 
tion which  can  be  supported  on  a  given  portion  of  the 
earth's  surface. 

Achievement  of  the  conditions  enumerated  requires  the 
application  of  science  not  only  to  production  but  to 
education.  The  discussion  of  the  kind  and  quantity  of 
education  required  to  secure  the  results  aimed  at,  how- 
ever, is  beyond  the  scope  of  our  discussion.  It  would 
of  course  need  to  be  both  technical  and  cultural,  and 
should  of  necessity  include  a  training  of  the  tastes  and 
aspirations  of  the  people  which  would  make  their  happi- 
ness depend  upon  things  far  removed  from  the  pursuit 
of  luxury,  frivolity  and  ostentation.  Other  things  being 
equal,  the  more  a  people's  happiness  depends  upon  a 
love  of  nature,  of  knowledge  and  of  usefulness,  the  less 
will  they  need  to  fear  poverty.  Education  as  a  means 
of  preventing  over-population  is  also  necessary. 

Compared  to  individualism,  capitalism  tends  to  the 
attainment  of  the  first  of  the  four  conditions  enumerated, 
but  it  is  an  active  obstacle  to  the  attainment  of  the  other 
three.  Both  theoretical  considerations  and  common  ob- 
servation make  it  plain  that  capitalism  can  never  abolish 
poverty.  Socialism  tends  directly  to  the  attainment  of 
the  first  and  second  conditions,  but  only  indirectly  and 
incidentally  to  the  third  and  fourth.    Unaccompanied  by 


128    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

the  proper  kind  and  degree  of  education,  socialism  will 
also  fail  to  abolish  poverty.  High  consumptive  efficiency 
and  proper  restriction  of  population  are  subjects  whicH 
socialists  tend  to  ignore,  but  they  are  as  essential  to  the 
abolition  of  poverty  as  high  efficiencies  of  production 
and  distribution. 

The  Adaptation  of  Material  Means  to  Moral  Ends. 

It  is  clear  enough,  not  only  from  the  foregoing  brief 
discussion,  but  from  every  day  observation  of  men  and 
nations,  that  the  unique  power  of  man  in  adapting  means 
to  ends,  while  holding  vast  potentialities  for  good,  holds 
equally  vast  potentialities  for  evil.  It  all  depends  upon 
the  end  to  which  it  is  directed.  It  can  augment  as  much 
the  horrors  of  war  as  the  blessings  of  peace.  It  is  a  two- 
edged  sword,  and  therefore  requires  the  more  careful 
handling.  Directed  to  a  wrong  or  a  half-way  end,  it  is 
a  power  which  can  make  of  man  a  more  miserable  species 
of  animal  than  any  of  those  who  have  it  not.  It  can  be 
used  to  enslave  as  well  as  to  liberate.  And  to  direct  it 
wrongly  is  not  only  possible  but  easy.  In  fact  it  is  con- 
tinually done.  Shallow,  uncritical  thinking  can  easily 
sidetrack  men  and  nations  and  make  their  most  laborious 
efforts  vain.  Indeed,  care  and  foresight  and  painstaking 
thought  alone  can  prevent  it.  Drift  and  custom  are  no 
substitutes  for  intelligence  as  guides  to  human  action. 
Labor  is  lost  if  not  directed  aright.  We  cannot  afford  to 
guide  our  conduct  by  a  half  thought-out  philosophy  of 
life.  It  may  save  mental  exertion  but  it  will  multiply 
physical  exertion  a  hundredfold.  It  will  leave  us 
stranded  at  some  half-way  station  like  the  pursuit  of 
wealth,  and  make  a  mockery  of  life.  By  all  means  let 
us  cultivate  efficiency  in  individual  as  in  collective  action, 
but  it  behooves  us  to  make  sure  it  is  not  an  efficiency 
which  sacrifices  the  end  to  the  means  of  utility. 


VI 

WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY? 

Self-interest  as  a  Useful  Quality  of  Human  Nature. 
In  previous  pages  I  have  been  guilty  of  some  leiteration 
in  seeking  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  most  con- 
spicuous examples  of  productive  efficiency  thus  far  de- 
veloped are  misdirected;  that  they  are  devoted  not  to 
promoting  the  happiness  of  the  people,  but  to  augmenting 
the  wealth  and  power  of  capitalists  and  kings.  The 
problem  of  misdirected  effort  thus  presented  to  the 
political  engineer  requires  for  its  solution  the  use  of 
another  characteristic  of  human  nature,  a  characteristic 
thus  far  left,  not  only  almost  unutilized  as  a  source  of 
public  service,  but  actually  perverted  to  the  uses  of  evil 
and  converted  into  a  source  of  public  disservice.  This 
characteristic  is  self-interest,  a  force  not  so  useful  as 
some  that  might  be  imagined,  but  capable,  because  of  its 
universality  and  intensity,  of  being  made  one  of  the 
most  potent  servants  of  man.  Much  of  its  present  ill 
repute  is  due  to  its  widespread  perversion,  a  result  of 
the  character  of  the  institutions  through  which  it  has 
been  forced  to  operate.  Properly  handled,  the  selfishness 
so  prevalent  in  human  nature  is  capable  of  becoming  a 
veritable  gold  mine  of  utility.  Indeed,  were  it  to  be 
abolished,  and  no  motive  of  comparable  power  substi- 
tuted for  it,  the  political  engineer  would  lose  one  of  the 
most  valuable  means  in  his  possession  for  making  suc- 
cessful the  pursuit  of  happiness.  It  is  a  great  driving 
force,  subject,  like  other  forces  of  nature,  to  perversion, 
but  like  them  capable  of  being  harnessed  in  the  service 

129 


130    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

'  I 

of  man.  It  is  only  a  case  of  proper  institutions  in  the 
one  case  as  of  proper  mechanism  in  the  other.  Selfishness 
turned  loose  to  operate  through  oligarchic  institutions, 
political,  industrial  or  otherwise,  is  like  a  river  flood 
turned  loose  to  devastate  a  valley  which,  under  a  proper 
system  of  flood  control,  it  would  serve  as  a  useful  high- 
way of  commerce.  By  means  of  the  proper  institutions 
self-interest  can  be  made  to  serve  the  society  it  is  now 
engaged  in  devastating,  and  America  has  already  de- 
veloped the  beginnings  of  such  institutions.  The  institu- 
tion of  democracy  is  nothing  less  than  one  such  beginning. 
Let  us  see  just  why  this  is  so. 

Democracy  an  Institution  for  Utilizing  Self-interest. 
However  inconsistently  they  may  apply  it,  Americans 
are  committed  to  the  principle  that  the  people  should 
rule  over  their  own  affairs.  This  is  the  foundation  stone 
of  the  American  system  of  government.  The  Declaration 
of  Independence  is  the  declaration  of  this  principle.  Now 
why  is  it  a  sound  principle?  Is  it  because  the  people  in 
ruling  their  own  affairs  will  serve  themselves  worse  than 
if  some  autocrat  ruled  their  affairs  for  them  ?  Is  democ- 
racy designed  as  a  means  of  public  disservice?  No, 
clearly  not.  Public  service  is  the  only  legitimate  object 
of  government,  as  of  all  other  institutions,  and  the  only 
excuse  for  the  peopk's  tolerance  of  their  own  rule  is 
that  it  will  be  more  in  their  interest  than  the  rule  of  some 
one  else.  Now,  why  will  it  be  more  in  their  interest? 
Simply  because  it  is  the  nature  of  human  beings  to  seek 
their  own  interest.  Therefore,  if  the  people  rule  their 
own  affairs  they  will  try  so  to  direct  them  as  to  serve 
their  own  interest;  whereas  if  some  autocrat  rules  them 
he  normally  will  so  direct  them  as  to  serve  himself.  This 
is  easily  predictable  from  our  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  and  the  prediction  is  confirmed  by  all  human 
history. 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?         131 

Democracy  then  is  an  expedient  to  make  human  sel- 
fishness a  means  of  serving  society,  instead  of  making 
society  serve  the  selfishness  of  rulers  as  autocracy  does. 
This  is  the  reason  and  the  only  reason  for  democracy; 
and  seen  in  the  light  of  this  reason,  it  is  clear  why  de- 
mocracy must  include  the  principle  called  by  Lincoln 
"the  principle  of  generality  and  locality,"  —  "Whatever 
concerns  the  whole  should  be  confided  to  the  whole;  to 
the  General  Government;  while  whatever  concerns  only 
the  State  should  be  left  exclusively  to  the  State." 

This  indeed  is  the  reason  why  the  affairs  of  any  group 
of  men  should  be  controlled  by  that  group  only,  and  not 
by  some  other  group  whose  self-interest  will  not  impel  it 
to  serve  those  whose  interests  are  concerned.  Present- 
day  democracy,  it  is  true,  is  but  a  beginning  in  the 
harnessing  of  the  great  force  of  self-interest;  it  is  only 
an  isolated  and  partial  application  of  a  much  broader 
principle  of  political  engineering  which  may  be  expressed 
thus : 

*  Institutions  should  be  so  designed  that  the  interest  of 
individuals  will  coincide  with  that  of  society. 

Democracy,  as  we  have  seen,  is  an  institution  designed 
to  conform  to  this  principle  by  making  the  interest  of 
rulers  coincide  with  that  of  the  ruled ;  but  in  its  present 
development  it  meets  the  requirements  thereof  very 
crudely  and  imperfectly.  Its  structure  is  so  full  of 
defects  and  inconsistencies  that  many  people  doubt  the 
soundness  of  the  principle  itself,  just  as  they  would  doubt 
the  soundness  of  the  principle  of  the  use  of  steam  for 
generating  power  if  the  only  steam  plants  with  which 
they  were  familiar  were  so  full  of  leaks  and  weaknesses 
that  they  operated  with  wretched  efficiency  and  con- 
tinually broke  down  when  put  to  unusual  strain.  In  the 
one  case,  as  in  the  other,  it  is  not  the  principle,  but  the 
details  of  putting  it  into  practice  which  are  at  fault,  which 


132    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

details,  once  perfected,  will  reveal  the  working  of  the 
principle  in  all  its  possibilities  of  power. 

Superiority  of  Political  Democracy  not  Demonstra- 
ble by  Citation  of  Examples.  From  these  considera- 
tions it  is  easy  to  see  why  inferences  drawn  from  the 
actual  workings  of  the  principle  of  democracy  are  not 
conclusive,  and  why  at  the  present  stage  of  its  develop- 
ment, theory  is  even  a  better  guide  than  practice.  It  is 
because  the  principle  has  never  been  applied  in  a  scientific 
manner.  If,  for  example,  we  consider  the  crude  de- 
mocracies of  Haiti,  or  Costa  Rica  or  Guatemala,  or  most 
of  those  of  South  America,  we  cannot  perceive  that  they 
are  any  great  improvement  as  means  to  human  happi- 
ness over  the  average  oligarchy  like  Spain  or  Morocco, 
or  Turkey  or  Austria.  In  other  instances  such  as  the 
United  States,  France,  Switzerland  and  the  British 
Colonies  we  find  the  principle  more  successfully  applied, 
and  in  these  countries  the  chances  are  that  the  results 
are  better  than  have  been  obtained  even  in  the  highest 
development  of  the  principle  of  monarchy,  such  as  we  find 
in  Germany.  Such  constitutional  monarchies  as  Den- 
mark, Norway,  Holland  and  Italy  can  hardly  be  placed 
in  either  class,  since  they  are  intermediate  in  form.  It  is 
then  difficult  to  come  to  a  final  decision  in  the  attempt  to 
judge  between  oligarchy  and  democracy  by  an  inspection 
of  actual  examples,  though  it  seems  safe  to  say  that  when 
we  compare  the  best  examples  of  each  the  superiority  of 
democracy  seems  clear.  At  any  rate,  there  are  few  if 
any  examples  to  be  found  in  history  in  which  a  people, 
having  given  each  principle  a  fair  trial,  have  deliberately 
chosen  oligarchy.  Many  instances  might  be  cited  in 
which  free  peoples  have  had  oligarchy  imposed  upon 
them,  but  few,  if  any,  in  which  they  deliberately'  and 
consciously  imposed  it  upon  themselves. 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?        133 


Unsuccessful  Democracy  Leads  to  Oligarchy.  But 
though  it  is  probably  never  deliberately  self-imposed,  it 
is  very  commonly  done  inadvertently.  Indeed,  this  is 
practically  always  the  case  in  those  so-called  democracies 
most  generally  cited  as  examples  of  the  failure  of  the 
principle,  such  as  some  of  those  in  South  and  Central 
America.  In  other  words,  these  are  not  democracies  at 
all,  in  spite  of  the  form  of  their  government,  and  hence  if 
they  are  failures  they  are  failures  of  the  oligarchic  prin- 
ciple. For  democracy  cannot  survive  among  an  unintelli- 
gent people.  It  automatically  reverts  to  oligarchy.  A 
people  who  cannot  or  will  not  rule  their  own  affairs  will 
not  remain  unruled.  They  will  be  ruled  by  oligarchs  in 
one  guise  or  another.  They  will  become  the  victims  of 
despots  possessed  of  the  power  if  not  the  name  of  kings. 
In  Latin  America  these  rulers  generally  go  by  the  name  of 
presidents  or  generals.  They  correspond  to  what  in 
ancient  Greece  were  called  tyrants  and  in  the  United 
States  are  called  "bosses."  We  quite  commonly  hear 
the  fear  expressed  that  some  people  unfit  for  self-govern- 
ment will  become  subject  to  its  sway,  but  no  such  fear 
is  justified.  A  people  unfit  for  self-government  cannot 
maintain  it.  Theirs  can  only  be  a  choice  of  oligarchies, 
and  whether  the  one  imposed  from  without,  or  through 
incapacity  self-imposed,  is  the  better  cannot  be  decided 
on  general  theoretical  grounds. 

Superiority  of  Industrial  Democracy  not  Demon- 
strable by  Citation  of  Examples.  Now  what  is  true 
of  the  comparison  between  political  oligarchy  and  de- 
mocracy is  true  of  the  comparison  between  the  industrial 
kinds.  It  is  difficult  to  come  to  a  final  conclusion  by  a 
comparison  of  actual  examples.  And  for  the  same  reason. 
Examples  of  public  ownership  of  public  industries  are 
usually  crude  and  imperfect.  It  is  easy  to  find  defects 
among  them.     They  are  often  characterized  by  great 


134    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

inefficiency  of  operation,  and  if  we  focus  our  attention 
upon  this  alone  we  shall  probably  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  are  failures  and  object  to  the  extension  of  the 
principle.  This  is  quite  generally  done  in  this  country. 
The  only  test  generally  applied  to  the  operation  of  public 
industries  is  that  of  commercial  efficiency.  The  test  of 
productive  efficiency  seems  never  to  be  considered,  and 
that  of  public  service  very  seldom.  This  seems  strange 
and  inconsistent  if  we  consider  that  public  functions 
should  be  performed  for  public  service,  but  it  is  not  in- 
consistent if  we  consider  that  their  performance  is  for 
private  profit.  And  this  latter  view  has,  by  habit,  become 
the  prevailing  one  in  capitalistic  countries. 

Commercial  efficiency  of  course  is  no  proper  test  to 
apply  to  the  workings  of  a  public  industry,  but  even  when 
thus  tested  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  private  can  prove 
its  superiority  over  public  operation.  This  whole  question 
of  course  is  one  which  can  be  decided  only  by  an  appeal 
to  carefully  compiled  statistics.  It  is  too  huge  a  subject 
to  be  discussed  here.  Many  books  and  reports  have 
been  published  about  it.  Some  claim  to  prove  that 
private  operation  is  cheapest,  others  that  public  operation 
is.  As  they  are  usually  written  by  partisans  of  one  side 
or  the  other  they  are  likely  to  be  misleading.  It  is  easy 
to  compare  statistics  which  are  not  really  comparable. 
It  is  also  easy  to  select  examples  which  tend  to  prove 
what  it  is  desired  to  prove  and  disregard  those  which 
tend  to  prove  the  contrary.  It  is  a  habit  of  partisans  to 
do  this.  Partisans  of  the  oligarchic  principle  like  to  cite 
as  examples  of  public  operation  the  graft-ridden  depart- 
ments of  our  great  cities.  Partisans  of  the  democratic 
principle  prefer  to  cite,  what  their  opponents  prefer  to 
ignore,  namely  the  operations  of  our  state  and  national 
governments,  particularly  such  achievements  as  the  build- 
ing of  the  Panama  Canal,  the  reclamation  projects  in 
the  west,  and  the  post-office  service.    In  their  comparison 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?         135 

of  private  operation  the  same  method  is  used.  As  a  rule 
the  proponents  of  a  principle  cite  the  best  examples  and 
ignore  the  worst,  while  their  opponents  adopt  the  con- 
trary tactics. 

There  is  much  to  be  learned  from  these  comparisons 
but,  taken  alone,  they  do  not  constitute  any  foundation 
for  a  final  conclusion  so  far  as  the  public  welfare  is 
concerned.  The  main  thing  they  prove  is  that  both  public 
and  private  operation  is,  as  a  rule,  very  inefficient,  even 
from  a  commercial  standpoint.  They  also  prove  that 
nothing  conclusive  can  be  inferred  from  citing  existing 
examples  of  industrial  democracy,  any  more  than  in  the 
parallel  case  of  political  democracy.  The  operation  of 
the  municipal  electric  and  gas  plants  of  a  city  may  be 
very  bad,  while  the  operation  of  the  sewerage  system, 
th-e  water  works  and  the  highways  of  the  same  city  may 
be  very  good,  just  as  we  can  in  Nicaragua  and  Mexico 
find  inferior  examples  of  the  democratic  form  of  political 
control  existing  on  the  same  continent  with  superior 
examples  like  the  United  States  and  Canada. 

Preponderance  of  Evidence  Favors  the  Democratic 
Principle.  While  it  would  be  too  long  a  story  to  go 
into  a  detailed  comparison  of  the  recorded  results  of 
private  as  compared  with  public  operation  of  public 
industries,  there  are  two  pieces  of  empirical  evidence  so 
significant  and  so  readily  verified,  as  to  merit  citation 
here,  even  though  they  may  not  be  completely  conclusive. 

First:  When  the  industrial  machinery  of  the  nations 
of  the  western  world  was  put  to  severe  strain  by  the 
great  war,  it  was  found  necessary,  in  order  to  get 
satisfactory  results,  for  the  various  governments  to  take 
over  the  control  of  one  after  another  of  the  industries 
upon  whose  efficient  operation  the  success  of  the  war 
depended.  Even  countries  like  England  and  the  United 
States,  wedded  to  the  theory  of  the  superior  efficiency 


136    AMERICAlSriZED  SOCIALISM 

of  private  operation  of  industry,  when  confronted  with 
the  actual  conditions,  were  forced  to  shelve  their  theory 
or  lose  the  war.  Railroads,  telegraphs,  mines,  many  lines 
of  manufacture,  not  to  speak  of  wages  and  prices  in 
various  instances,  have  become  subject  to  government 
direction,  and  the  process  continues  to  spread.  This 
direction  is  much  more  drastic  (and  successful)  than  the 
"regulation"  of  the  pre-war  days.  It  is  positive,  not 
negative.  It  deals  with  what  must  be  done,  rather  than 
with  what  must  not  be  done.  It  approaches  much  more 
closely  the  status  of  government  ownership.  The  chaos, 
conflict,  uncertainty  and  general  ineffectiveness  of  cap- 
italism could  not  be  tolerated  when  it  became  neces- 
sary to  focus  the  nation's  efforts  on  a  single  vital  object; 
and  so  a  sort  of  substitute  for  socialism  had  to  be  im- 
provised and  hurriedly  applied  to  the  situation.  And  lo, 
even  this  hasty,  half-baked  substitute  is  giving  such  re- 
sults that  the  nations,  despite  their  theories,  continue  to 
extend  it. 

It  is  claimed  in  some  quarters  that  this  poor  showing 
of  capitalism  is  due  to  the  abnormal  conditions  peculiar 
to  war  and  this  claim  is  probably  in  some  measure  jus- 
tified; but  it  by  no  means  explains  away  the  observed 
facts,  which  plainly  indicate  that  the  unity  in  public 
service  which  renders  industry  so  much  more  effective 
in  war  will  render  it  more  effective  in  peace,  if  in  peace 
the  ideal  of  unity  in  the  public  service  is  retained. 

Second:  What  is  true  of  experience  with  political,  is 
also  true  of  that  with  industrial,  democracy — although 
we  can  easily  point  out  unsatisfactory  examples  of  its 
application,  the  fact  remains  that  communities  familiar 
with  the  results  of  both  private  and  public  operation  of 
any  great  public  industry  seldom,  if  ever,  deliberately 
impose  private  operation  upon  themselves,  or  return  to 
it  once  it  has  been  replaced  by  public  operation.  So  far 
as  the  test  of  actual  practice,  as  decided  by  the  people 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?        137 

I  3 

affected  is  concerned,  the  decision  is  practically  unani- 
mous that  the  principle  of  democracy,  whether  in  the 
political  or  industrial  field,  is  more  in  their  interest  than 
that  of  oligarchy. 

But  even  assuming  that  this  all  but  unanimous  judg- 
ment is  erroneous,  it  would  not  settle  the  matter,  because 
the  principle  of  industrial  democracy  as  a  means  to 
public  service  has  never  been  given  any  really  adequate 
trial — certainly  no  such  opportunity  to  prove  its  worth 
as  capitalism  has  had  during  the  century  and  more  of 
its  developed  existence. 

The  Potentiality  of  an  Undeveloped  Institution  a 
Better  Test  Than  its  Performance.     It  is  not  of  so 

much  importance,  however,  what  the  oligarchic  and 
democratic  principles  applied  to  industry  have  so  far 
done  in  the  service  of  humanity  as  what  they  are  capable 
of  doing  when  their  latent  powers  are  developed.  Capital- 
ism and  socialism  should  be  judged  on  their  merits  in  the 
4ong  run,  and  not  on  superficial  and  removable  defects. 
The  best  mechanisms,  either  material  or  social,  can  be 
so  mismanaged  as  to  appear  no  better  than  the  worst.  The 
superficial  citation  of  actual  performance  in  an  unper- 
fected  method  of  doing  things  leads  to  superficial  judg- 
ments, like  those  of  the  conservatives  of  the  good  o'ld 
times  when  the  railroads  first  appeared  in  the  country. 
They  were  then  of  course  crude  affairs  with  many  tech- 
nical difficulties  unmastered.  The  country  stage  often 
used  to  beat  the  steam  train  from  one  town  to  another, 
and  these  failures  of  the  new  method  were  cited  by 
persons  averse  to  innovation  as  proofs  that  the  stage 
coach  was,  and  always  would  be,  the  better  mode  of 
transportation;  the  railroad  being  all  right  in  theory 
perhaps,  but  impractical  in  practice.  Their  judgment 
was  based  upon  the  observation  of  non-essential  and  re- 
movable incidents  of  the  more  modern  method.  He  whose 


138    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

judgment  of  industrial  democracy  rests  on  the  same  basis 
is  in  danger  of  falling  into  the  same  error. 

If  the  critic  of  socialism  assumes,  as  he  usually  does, 
that  publicly  operated  industries  will  necessarily  be  ut- 
terly mismanaged  his  conclusion  that  the  system  will  fail 
logically  follows,  but  if  th-e  same  assumption  is  made 
with  regard  to  any  other  new  proposal  the  same  conclu- 
sion will  follow.  The  mechanical  engineer  would  not 
judge  of  a  machine  by  some  accident  occuring  in  a  test, 
or  some  mechanical  difficulty  which  a  reasonable  amount 
of  patience  or  ingenuity  would  remove;  but  by  the 
soundness  or  unsoundness  of  the  principles  involved,  and 
the  political  engineer  can  profit  by  his  example.  When 
it  comes  to  an  issue  between  a  correct  plan  poorly 
executed,  and  an  incorrect  plan  well  executed,  we 
should  not  reject  the  correct  plan  and  worry  along 
as  well  as  possible  with  the  incorrect  one.  We  should 
retain  the  incorrect  one  only  as  a  temporary  make- 
shift, and  devote  ourselves  to  the  improvement  of  the 
execution  of  the  correct  on-e.  There  is  no  use  in  taking 
great  pains  to  perfect  a  mechanism,  either  mechanical  or 
social,  which  is  vitally  defective  in  principle.  We  may 
accomplish  a  little  by  so  doing,  but  the  same  pains  taken 
to  perfect  a  mechanism  having  the  proper  principle 
would  accomplish  vastly  more.  No  amount  of  improve- 
ment of  the  stage  coach  could  make  it  the  equal  of  the 
railroad  when  perfected,  and  similarly  no  amount  of 
improvement  of  capitalism  can  make  it  the  equal  of 
socialism  when  perfected.  Industrial,  like  political, 
oligarchy  is  defective  in  principle,  and  though  both  at 
their  best  may  be  superior  to  democracy  at  its  worst,  if 
the  two  systems  are  both  judged  at  their  best  democracy 
will  be  found  immeasurably  superior. 

Successful  Socialism  Must  be  a  Growth.    Nor  can 

we   fairly   require  industrial  democracy   in   its   present 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?        189 

t  I 

Stage  to  lay  down  to  the  last  detail  the  mode  of  its  pro- 
cedure, and  the  extent  of  its  application  when  completely 
matured.  As  well  require  the  builders  of  the  earliest 
railroads  to  draw  plans  of  modern  high  power  locomo- 
tives, and  to  trace  on  the  map  the  exact  routes  which 
the  extended  railroad  system  of  to-day  actually  takes. 
All  highly  efficient  mechanisms  of  any  complexity  are 
growths.  Their  design  cannot  be  fixed  once  for  all,  but 
must  be  modified  and  improved  by  experience. 

The  fact  is  that  no  €x;ample  of  pure  socialism  can  be 
cited.  The  present  examples  of  publicly  operated  public 
utilities  are  along  the  lines  rather  of  state  socialism  than 
of  industrial  democracy.  They  have  not  completely  re- 
nounced operation  for  profit  in  favor  of  operation  for 
use.  Many  of  them  seek  a  profit  directly,  thus  being 
used  as  means  of  taxation;  none  of  them  distinguish 
clearly  between  low  money  cost  and  low  labor  cost,  or 
between  the  sentient  and  non-sentient  factors  of  produc- 
tion. In  fact,  they  all  seek  to  imitate  capitalism  in  greater 
or  less  degree,  and  hence  are  at  best  poor  examples  of  the 
possibilities  of  true  socialism. 

Again  as  to  the  exact  extension  of  socialism  we  cannot 
predict.  Its  aim  in  regard  to  socialized  production, 
however,  is  identical  with  that  of  capitalism.  It  would 
extend  that  mode  of  production  as  far  as  it  could  be 
conveniently  and  practically  extended  but  it  would  first 
democratize  it.  The  railroad  has  not  completely  abolished 
the  stage  coach.  In  many  a  remote  or  hilly  locality  the 
stage  coach  holds  its  own  to-day.  To  such  places  it  is 
not  at  present  feasible  to  extend  the  more  modem 
method ;  but  as  time  goes  on  the  relative  number  of  these 
places  tends  to  diminsh.  Similarly,  socialism  will  perhaps 
never  entirely  replace  capitalism,  even  though  it  is  as 
superior  to  it  as  a  method  of  usefully  producing  and 
distributing  wealth  as  the  railroad  is  to  the  stage  coach 
as   a  method   of   transporting   freight  and  passengers. 


140    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  I 

Local  circumstances  may  reverse  the  conditions  of  su- 
periority in  the  social  as  in  the  material  mechanism. 
Socialism  proposes  to  operate  the  coal  mines  and  the 
steel  mills  of  the  country  as  public  monopolies.  It  may 
not  do  the  same  thing  with  the  push  carts  and  the  peanut 
stands.  The  extension  of  socialism  into  the  domain  of 
capitalism,  like  the  extension  of  the  railroad  into  the 
domain  of  the  stage  coach,  must  be  determined  by  growth 
and  experiment,  and  the  gradual  improvement  of  details 
of  operation. 

How  Does  Industrial  Oligarchy  Propose  to  Deal 
with  the  Evil  it  Creates?  It  is  a  well  known  fact  that 
destructive  criticism  is  much  easier  than  constructive. 
And  while  the  prospects  of  industrial  democracy  may 
seem  disappointing  when  compared  with  perfection,  they 
seem  much  brighter  when  compared  with  the  only  pro- 
posed alternative.  Assuming  we  do  not  lapse  into  the 
anarchy  of  individualism  again,  the  only  alternative  to 
socialism  is  capitalism — and  how  does  capitalism  propose 
to  deal  with  its  own  weaknesses  ?  Perhaps  socialism  may 
seem  unsatisfactory  when  compared  with  perfection,  but 
compare  capitalism  with  perfection  and  see  what  kind 
of  a  showing  it  makes.  For  instance,  how  would  capital- 
ism, avoiding*  socialistic  methods,  go  to  work  to  remedy 
some  of  the  following  evils  readily  observable  all  about 
us  to-day?  The  various  evils  of  bargaining,  including 
labor  troubles,  the  productive  and  consumptive  ineffi- 
ciency of  competition,  the  corruption  of  political  life  by 
the  money  power,  the  inequality  of  the  distribution  of 
wealth,  the  maladjustment  of  production  to  consumption, 
the  evils  of  overpopulation  and  poverty. 

These  are  by  no  means  all  the  evils  associated  with 
capitalism,  but  they  will  do  to  begin  with;  and  if  any 
one  will  take  the  trouble  to  inquire  how,  under  capitalism, 
they  are  ever  to  be  remedied,  he  will  better  appreciate 


WHAT  IS  DEMOCRACY?        141 

i  I 

the  necessity  for  some  alternative.  Those  who  criticize 
socialism  usually  confine  themselves  to  criticism.  They 
focus  attention  upon  the  weakness  of  socialism  in  dealing 
with  these  evils.  They  ignore  the  tenfold  greater  weak- 
ness of  capitalism  in  dealing  with  them.  Socialism,  to 
be  sure,  cannot  see  its  way  to  their  complete  removal. 
Further  knowledge  is  required  to  see  as  far  as  that. 
But  capitalism  cannot  see  its  way  to  do  anything  funda- 
mentally effective  about  them  whatever.  It  cannot  even 
make  a  start.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  whenever 
any  real  attempt  to  reform  these  evils  is  made,  socialistic 
methods  of  one  sort  or  another  are  adopted.  Consequently 
reform  of  the  evils  of  capitalism  usually  takes  the  form 
of  a  half-baked  socialism,  because  capitalism  by  its  own 
methods  is  helpless.  Similia  similibus  curantur  does  not 
apply  to  capitalism.  The  cure  for  the  ills  of  democracy 
is  more  democracy,  but  no  American  has  ever  explicitly 
claimed  that  the  cure  for  the  ills  of  oligarchy  is  more 
oligarchy.  That  is  why  even  the  sturdiest  among  the 
American  opponents  of  socialism  has  never  openly 
ventured  to  propose  more  capitalism  as  a  cure  for  the  ills 
of  capitalism. 

What  is  the  ideal  of  capitalism  anyway?  What  does 
the  advocate  of  that  institution  think  it  is  trying  to  do? 
Where  is  it  going  and  why?  Is  it  going  anywhere? 
Isn't  it  merely  drifting?  And  if  so  where?  If  any 
ideal  is  discoverable  it  surely  cannot  be  very  inspiring. 
What  can  we  expect  to  make  of  a  system  the  essential 
feature  of  which  is  to  take  from  him  who  serves  and 
give  to  him  who  owns  ?  Suppose  such  a  system  perfected, 
what  would  it  be  like?  It  is  not  very  pleasant  to  think 
about.  Such  an  ideal  is  not  one  to  cherish,  much  less  to 
realize.  Were  capitalists  as  men  not  superior  to  capitalism 
as  an  institution,  its  fatal  defects  would  become  obvious  - 
to  the  least  observant.     The  institution  is  bad  enough 


142    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

in  its  imperfection,  tempered  as  it  is  by  humanity.  Deliver 
us  from  its  perfection ! 

Use  of  Engineering  Methods  to  Render  Democracy 
Efficient.  The  task  immediately  before  the  political 
engineer  then  is  not  so  much  to  deal  with  capitalism  and 
socialism  as  they  at  present  exist,  as  to  discover  how  the 
defects  of  industrial  democracy  may  be  avoided  without 
loss  of  its  merits,  how  its  strong  points  may  be  retained 
and  its  weak  points  eliminated ;  in  short  how  democracy 
may  be  combined  with  efficiency  so  that  the  driving  force 
of  individual  self-interest  may  be  made  to  serve  mankind 
by  promoting  productive  and  consumptive  efficiency 
throughout  society  as  a  whole,  instead  of  serving  a  small 
class  by  the  promotion  of  commercial  efficiency  merely. 
To  accomplish  this  requires  the  deliberate  design  of  in- 
stitutions, which,  among  other  things,  will  make  the 
interest  of  the  individual  coincide  with  that  of  society, 
a  design  requiring  to  be  worked  out  at  least  as  carefully 
as  the  device  for  the  same  general  end  invented  and 
adopted  in  1789  by  the  fathers  of  this  republic,  which 
made  it  possible  for  the  people  to  select  their  own  rulers. 
The  constitution  builders,  in  devising  this  application  of 
democracy,  used  the  "Utopian"  method — and  no  one  has 
ever  suggested  a  better  one.  In  building  the  structure 
of  industrial  democracy  the  practical  socialist  must  use 
the  same  method.  In  rejecting  the  bad  he  must  not  reject 
the  good  of  the  old  institution.  Thus  he  may  dispense 
with  the  need  of  raising  the  question  whether  the  present 
system  of  public  operation  of  public  industry  is  better 
than  the  private  system  by  raising  a  new  and  more  im- 
portant question,  namely,  whether  it  is  not  possible  to 
devise  a  system  which  will  retain  the  advantages  and 
avoid  the  disadvantages  of  both. 


VII 


HOW  TO  COMBINE  DEMOCRACY 
WITH  EFFICIENCY 

A  Method  of  Applying  Socialism.  In  the  last 
chapter  it  was  shown  that  democracy  is  a  special  ex- 
ample of  the  appHcation  of  self-interest  in  the  service  of 
public  interest.  It  is  an  expedient  for  putting  a  premium 
upon  rule  in  the  interest  of  the  public  instead  of  in  the 
interest  of  oligarchs  or  of  an  oligarchic  class.  It  was 
also  indicated  that  the  somewhat  disappointing  results 
of  democracy  were  due,  not  to  any  fault  of  the  principle, 
but  to  its  incomplete  and  crude  application.  By  leaving 
the  oligarchic  principle  in  control  of  so  many  kinds  of 
conduct  which  concern  the  public,  modern  democracies 
place  a  premium  upon  public  disservice  instead  of  public 
service. 

The  first  step  in  remedying  the  situation  is  to  make 
democracy  consistent  in  its  application  by  applying  it 
to  economic  as  well  as  to  political  conduct.  But  while  we 
are  about  it,  why  not  extend  the  application  of  the  pre- 
mium system  from  democracy  to  efficiency  in  the  public 
service  ?  To  do  this  requires  some  modification  of  exist- 
ing methods,  both  in  political  and  industrial  affairs. 
Those  required  in  political  affairs  will  not  be  here  dis- 
cussed; but  one  of  several  possible  methods  of  applying 
a  premium  to  efficiency  in  economic  democracy  will  be 
proposed  and  tested  by  the  rules  developed  in  previous 
chapters. 

143 


144    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

The  broad  principles  of  the  method  are  as  follows : 

Public  ownership  and  operation  of  important  in- 
X     dustrial  activities. 

\  Fixation  of  wages  and  prices  by  disinterested  and 
\     expert  public  authorities. 
*Ahnual  (or  semi-annual)  division  of  the  surplus  in 
industry  between  producers  and  consumers. 

It  is  not  easy  to  explain  how  socialism  will  work  out 
unless  something  is  assumed  about  the  method  of  apply- 
ing it.  The  method  here  proposed  is  not  the  only  method 
adoptable,  but  for  the  sake  of  definiteness  I  shall  assume 
it  to  be  the  method  adopted,  and  shall  illustrate  its 
presumable  operation  by  answering  a  series  of  hypo- 
thetical questions  about  it.  If  the  Marxian  wishes  to 
call  this  procedure  utopianism,  I  am  ready  to  acknowl- 
edge the  charge.  Names  are  not  substitutes  for  reasons, 
and  practical  tactics  cannot  be  rendered  impractical  by 
calling  them  Utopian  any  more  than  impractical  tactics 
can  be  rendered  practical  by  calling  them  scientific.  The 
catechism  which  follows  is  necessarily  fragmentary,  the 
answers  of  course  are  subject  to  all  kinds  of  correction, 
and  many  doubts  and  objections  must  remain  unresolved, 
but  within  the  limits  imposed  by  the  space  allowable,  the 
questions  most  commonly  asked  about  socialism  will  be 
given  at  least  a  provisional  answer. 

How  Will  Wages  be  Fixed  Under  Socialism?    One 

of  the  first  questions  generally  asked  about  the  program 
of  socialism  is  how  wages  will  be  fixed.  There  are 
various  methods,  but  one  well  adapted  to  the  purpose 
is  as  follows : 

The  public  department  charged  with  this  function,  con- 
sisting of  experts  who  are  in  possession  of  the  proper 
information,  fix  wages  provisionally  according  to  the 
principle  of  similar  wages  for  similar  work;  subject. 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  145 

preferably,  to  recognition  of  length  of  service  as  a 
factor.  It  is  understood  that  positions  will  be  open  to 
those  persons  only  who,  by  civil  service  examination  or 
otherwise,  have  proved  their  ability  to  perform  the  duties 
required.  If  the  wage  fixers  gauge  correctly  the  wage 
required  to  attract  qualified  candidates  to  the  various 
positions  to  be  filled,  this  principle  will  suffice.  If  they 
do  not,  their  failure  will  be  automatically  revealed  by 
a  scarcity  of  candidates  for  positions  the  wages  of  which 
have  been  fixed  too  low,  and  an  excess  of  candidates  for 
those  the  wages  of  which  have  been  fixed  too  high.  Re- 
vision of  wages  to  keep  supply  and  demand  of  labor 
proportional  to  one  another  will  then  be  necessary  and 
the  work  of  wage  fixing  will  consist  of  this  periodic  revi- 
sion required  by  the  actual  facts  of  the  case. 

This  method  of  wage  fixing  is  not  materially  different 
from  that  employed  to-day  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, except  that  under  a  properly  directed  socialism, 
labor  will  be  kept  chronically  scarce  so  that  wages  near 
tbe  starvation  level  will  attract  no  candidates.  Hence 
such  wages  will  not  be  offered.  If  labor  tends  to  become 
plenty  it  will  be  made  artificially  scarce  by  reducing  the 
hours  until  surplus  labor  is  absorbed.  This  expedient 
will  insure  work  for  all,  on  the  one  hand,  and  increased 
leisure  for  all  on  the  other.  Under  socialism  conditions 
will  be  the  reverse  of  those  in  India  and  China,  for  ex- 
ample, where  there  are  always  a  horde  of  starving 
wretches  willing  to  do  anything  to  earn  a  crust  of  bread. 
It  will  be  very  hard  to  get  people  to  do  the  "dirty  work," 
and  those  who  do  it  will  be  paid  in  proportion  to  its  un- 
attractiveness.  This  will  not  be  because  employers  have 
become  benevolent  or  repentant  and  learned  to  love  the 
poor  laboring  man,  but  because  when  a  people  are  their 
own  employer,  they  will  have  no  more  to  gain  by  ex- 
ploiting their  employees  than  farmer  Jonathan  would 
have  in  enslaving  himself  for  his  own  benefit.    It  is  the 


146    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

automatic  operation  of  the  wage  fixing  system  that  in- 
sures th-e  wilHng  but  humble  worker  a  decent  wage  under 
socialism.  This  will  be  a  better  insurance  than  the  un- 
certain sympathy  with  the  down-trodden  which  is  all 
capitalism  has  to  offer. 

To  illustrate  the  working  of  the  system,  imagine  for 
a  moment  the  official  wage  fixers  to  fix  a  uniform  hourly 
wage  for  everybody.  There  being  no  compulsion  forc- 
ing men  to  take  particular  jobs,  and  labor  being  scarce, 
there  will  be  a  rush  for  two  kinds  of  positions:  First, 
those  in  which  the  work  is  very  easy  to  do ;  second,  those 
in  which  it  is  easy  to  qualify.  To  attract  labor  to  the 
other  kinds  of  positions,  then,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
raise  the  wages  attaching  to  them,  so  that  wages  will  tend 
to  be  highest  in  two  kinds  of  positions:  First,  those 
charact-erized  by  the  difficulty  or  dlsagreeableness  of  the 
work  to  be  done;  and  second,  those  requiring  unusual 
preparation  or  ability.  In  other  words,  the  high  rates  of 
wages  will  tend  to  go  to  those  with  unusual  ability,  perse- 
verance and  willingness  to  do  arduous  and  unpleasant 
labor ;  the  low  rates  to  the  poorly  qualified  and  lazy ;  and 
the  intermediate  rates  to  the  intermediate  or  average 
man.  This  condition  of  things  results  automatically 
from  the  system  employed,  and  it  puts  the  premium 
where  it  is  most  useful  to  put  it. 

The  duties  of  the  wage  fixers  then  are  as  follows : 

( 1 )  To  fix  wages  provisionally. 

(2)  To  revise  provisional  wages  to  the  extent  re- 
quired to  keep  supply  and  demand  in  adjustment. 

(3)  To  keep  labor  scarce  by  shortening  hours  when 
necessary. 

This,  of  course,  is  only  a  sketch  of  the  wage  fixing 
system.  It  obviously  admits  of  great  variation,  and  its 
flexibility  adapts  it  to  meet  any  situation  which  may 
arise.  Flexibility  in  the  mechanism  of  a  social  system 
is  very  important,  particularly  of  a  new  social  system. 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  147 

In  this,  as  in  so  many  other  respects,  social  are  similar 
to  mechanical  systems. 

How  Will  Prices  be  Fixed  Under  Socialism?    The 

theory  of  wage  fixation  under  a  system  of  free  labor, 
rendered  scarce,  artificially  if  necessary,  is  fairly  clear, 
so  that  the  main  principles  as  laid  down  in  the  preceding 
section  will  probably  not  require  a  great  deal  of  modifi- 
cation by  experiment.  The  theory  of  price  fixation  is 
not  so  clear,  and  therefore  more  experiment  will  be 
required  to  make  its  practice  satisfactory.  However, 
under  the  system  here  proposed  the  following  principles 
would  seem  to  be  sound : 

Prices  must  be  fixed:  (i)  By  disinterested  officials 
(perhaps  the  same  that  fix  wages).  (2)  Sufficiently 
high  so  that  the  surplus  going  to  the  operatives  will 
normally  amount  to  a  material  fraction  of  their  total 
annual  compensation.  (3)  On  definite  principles  to  be 
formulated  after  the  required  knowledge  is  acquired  by 
experiment. 

A  brief  discussion  will  make  the  object  of  these  prin- 
ciples clear. 

First :  Fixation  of  prices,  as  of  wages,  by  disinterested 
parties  is  necessary  to  avoid  the  evils  of  bargaining. 
These  evils,  common  to  mature  and  immature  capitalism, 
have  already  been  touched  upon.  Disinterested  fixation 
of  prices  is  as  necessary  in  an  orderly  community  as  dis- 
interested settlement  of  other  matters  likely  to  cause 
dispute.  To-day  disputes  about  the  boundary  of  prop- 
erty in  land  or  the  ownership  of  a  house  or  a  cow  are 
settled  by  a  disinterested  judge  or  jury.  Wages  and 
prices  should  be  settled  in  a  manner  no  less  disinterested, 
and  for  the  same  reason.  Only  they  should  be  fixed  to 
forestall  any  possibility  of  a  dispute  instead  of  waiting 
for  it  to  arise.  Under  a  completely  cooperative  com- 
monwealth there  is  reason  to  believe  a  plan  can  be  de- 


148    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

veloped  for  abolishing  altogether  the  divergence  of 
interest  between  producer  and  consumer.  In  the  less 
matured  stages  of  socialism  the  identification  of  interest 
cannot  be  made  complete.  Therefore  we  must  do  the 
next  best  thing.  We  must  make  the  identification  com- 
plete where  we  can,  and  where  we  cannot,  we  must  put 
the  power  to  decide  in  the  hands  of  disinterested  parties 
because  it  is  the  best  alternative  left.  This  is  the  policy 
of  socialism  in  its  unperfected  condition,  before  a  method 
of  complete  identification  of  interest  can  be  worked  out 
experimentally. 

By  the  fixation  of  wages  and  prices  by  disinterested 
experts,  those  who  manage  industry  will  be  able  to  devote 
their  undivided  attention  to  achieving  the  highest  pro- 
ductive efficiency.  All  fiscal  matters  being  taken  out  of 
their  hands,  they  will  have  no  interest  in  commercial 
efficiency,  and  hence  no  dispute  about  wages  can  arise 
between  them  and  the  worker,  and  no  dispute  about 
prices  between  them  and  the  consumer.  This  separation 
of  the  function  of  management  of  production  from 
management  of  finance  is  essential  to  efficiency  in  pro- 
duction. The  fact  that  it  cannot  be  effected  under  cap- 
italism is  one  of  the  main  causes  of  the  inefficiency  of 
that  system. 

Second :  The  surplus  going  to  the  producer  should  be 
sufficient  to  stimulate  him  to  activity  in  the  effort  to 
increase  productive  efficiency  both  for  his  own  benefit 
and  that  of  the  consumer.  The  amount  of  the  surplus 
cannot  be  determined  accurately  beforehand,  but  it  will 
in  any  event  depend  upon  the  productive  efficiency  of  the 
workers,  and  prices  should  be  so  fixed  that  the  maximum 
encouragement  be  given  them  to  increase  that  efficiency. 
If  prices  are  fixed  too  low  the  workers  will  be  dis- 
couraged by  the  poor  prospect  of  making  their  share  of 
the  surplus  a  material  addition  to  their  wages.  If  fixed 
too  high  the  increment  of  the  total  surplus  due  to  their 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  149 

!■  I 

efforts  will  be  too  small  to  interest  them  as  much  as 
desirable.  Experiment  is  required  to  settle  the  best 
compromise  between  these  tendencies. 

Third:  Definite  principles  of  price  fixation  must  be 
worked  out  in  order  to  avoid  making  the  decision  arbi- 
trary. The  trouble  with  the  present  methods  of  arbitra- 
tion in  labor  disputes  is  that  they  are  arbitrary.  They 
depend  upon  the  influence  which  the  contending  parties 
can  exert  rather  than  upon  the  force  of  any  definite 
principles  involved.  In  fact,  there  are  no  recognized 
principles.  The  decision  turns  on  what  the  judges  think 
is  "fair."  It  is  generally  a  compromise  between  forces 
instead  of  an  application  of  any  rule  of  right.  What 
is  sought  is  not  the  most  just  decision,  but  the  decision 
which  will  most  promptly  settle  the  dispute.  Conse- 
quently one  dispute  is  hardly  settled  before  another 
arises,  and  there  is  no  end  to  the  process. 

But  when  definite  principles  are  laid  down,  disputes 
are  forestalled.  If  the  price-fixers  are  required  by  law, 
lor  instance,  to  fix  prices  which  will  presumably  pro- 
duce a  surplus  of  say  40%  of  the  total  wages  or  30% 
of  the  total  receipts  for  the  year,  or  some  other  definite 
rule  or  set  of  rules  is  prescribed,  then  the  decision  will 
turn  on  the  force  of  fact  and  evidence,  and  not  on  the 
force  of  political,  economic,  personal  or  financial  "pull" 
or  other  kinds  of  "influence."  In  short,  socialism  will 
place  questions  of  wages,  prices  and  all  similar  matters 
on  the  same  basis  that  our  forefathers  placed  all  ques- 
tions of  political  power.  It  will  not  leave  them  to  the 
play  of  arbitrary  forces,  but  will  make  them  matters  of 
law ;  just  as  the  constitution  does  not  leave  political  office 
and  political  functions  to  the  arbitrary  caprice  of  a  king 
but  makes  them  matters  of  constitutionality.  The  aboli- 
tion of  arbitrary  decisions  is  as  essential  in  economic  as 
in  political  affairs  if  we  are  to  be  successful  in  achiev- 


150    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

1  I 

ing  the  ideal  of  the  fathers  of  the  republic  to  establish 
3^ovemment  of  laws  and  not  of  men." 

How  Will  the  Surplus  of  Industry  be  Divided  Under 
Socialism?  The  problem  of  the  division  of  the  surplus, 
like  that  of  price-fixing,  is  a  technical  one,  and  can  only 
be  touched  upon  briefly  here.  Experiment  is  required  to 
work  it  out.  The  division  between  producer  and  con- 
sumer can  be  equal,  or  it  may  be  in  some  other  proportion 
found  to  be  more  satisfactory.  The  division  among  the 
several  producers  should  probably  be  in  proportion  to  the 
wage  received,  and  among  the  several  consumers  in  pro- 
portion to  the  purchases  made.  A  coupon  system  for 
supplying  consumers  with  receipts  for  purchases  is  easily 
devised.     These  can  be  cashed  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

The  objection  is  sometimes  made  that  the  consumer 
is  not  entitled  to  a  share  in  the  surplus  because  his  efforts 
have  not  been  instrumental  in  creating  it.  The  answer 
is  that  if  the  principle  is  right  then  he  is  entitled  to  it 
anyway,  because  the  public  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
any  principle  that  is  right.  If  the  retention  of  the 
entire  surplus  by  the  producer  is  a  better  way  of  con- 
ducting industry  than  to  divide  it  up  with  the  consumer, 
then  it  should  be  adopted.  A  critical  series  of  experi- 
ments would  tell  whether  it  was  or  not.  Such  experi- 
ments should  be  tried,  and  the  community  govern  itself 
according  to  the  results  secured.  It  is  quite  likely  that 
in  the  more  mature  stages  of  socialism  this  expedient 
would  be  found  satisfactory,  but  much  less  so  in  the 
earlier  stages. 

Another  objection  is  that  to  fix  prices  so  high  as  to 
make  a  surplus  possible  is  a  hardship  to  the  consumer, 
since  it  makes  him  pay  more  than  the  actual  cost.  The 
answer  to  this  is  that,  as  a  general  thing,  people  will 
gain  as  much  in  their  capacity  as  producers  as  they 
will  lose  in  their  capacity  as  consumers  by  this  system — 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  151 

indeed  they  will  gain  much  more.  For  all  increase  in 
productivity  which  this  method  of  compensation  pro- 
motes is  bound  to  accrue  to  the  peopl-e  in  one  capacity 
or  the  other — every  bit  of  it — since  there  is  no  capitalist 
class  to  absorb  any  of  it.  Hence  there  is  nowhere  else 
for  it  to  go. 

The  objects  of  dividing  the  surplus  between  producer 
and  consumer  are  two :  ( i )  To  provide  incentive  to  the 
producer  to  increase  his  productive  efficiency,  and  (2) 
to  identify  th-e  interests  of  producer  and  consumer  by 
making  the  latter  a  sharer  in  the  benefits  of  increase. 
In  other  words,  it  is  a  device  to  insure,  so  far  as  possible 
under  a  system  of  collective  production,  the  same  rela- 
tion between  producer  and  consum-er  that  obtains  under 
the  individualist  system  of  farmer  Jonathan,  where  pro- 
ducer and  consumer  are  the  same  person  or  belong  to 
the  same  family.  Theoretically  it  should  insure  such  a 
relation,  and  until  actual  practice  refutes  the  theory,  we 
are  entitled  to  regard  it  as  sound.  If  practice  should 
refute  it  then  the  claims  of  the  economists  about  the 
incentive  furnished  by  profit  are  refuted  likewise,  for 
the  system  here  proposed  provides  the  same  kind  of 
incentive,  only  it  directs  it  to  public  instead  of  to  private 
service. 

How  Will  Deficits  be  Avoided  Under  Socialism? 

In  the  last  section  it  was  noted  that  the  existence  of  a 
surplus  in  industry  is,  by  some  persons,  accounted  an 
objection.  Other  persons — or  perhaps  the  same  ones — 
are  likely  to  account  a  deficit  an  objection  also.  It  is 
rather  hard  to  guess  a  year  beforehand  exactly  how  a 
given  industry  is  coming  out  as  respects  income  and 
outgo.  Hence  to  avoid  either  a  surplus  or  a  deficit 
would  be,  to  say  the  least,  difficult. 

Nevertheless,  many  people  are  much  concerned  about 
deficits  in  government  operation,  particularly  in  the  post 


152    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I 

office.  They  seem  to  think  it  necessarily  implies  a 
public  loss  of  some  kind.  There  is  no  such  necessary 
implication.  Deficits  in  public  service  are  made  up  from 
the  public  treasury  and  are  paid  out  of  taxes.  The  tax- 
payer pays  them,  but  whether  he  is  a  loser  thereby 
depends  upon  whether  or  not  he  gets  his  money's  worth. 
The  payment  for  public  service  out  of  taxes  is  not 
necessarily  a  loss.  If  it  were,  payment  for  public 
streets,  schools,  etc.,  would  be  a  total  loss,  for  it  is  all 
deficit.  It  is  all  paid  out  of  taxes.  If  the  deficit  in  a 
public  service,  which,  like  the  post  office,  charges  the 
individual  consumer  of  service,  can  be  traced  to  some 
inefficiency,  then  indeed  there  is  a  loss  to  the  community ; 
but  it  is  the  inefficiency,  not  the  deficit,  which  constitutes 
the  loss  and  should  bear  the  criticism.  Indeed,  the  loss 
would  be  the  same  if  it  did  not  cause  any  deficit  at  all, 
just  as  any  waste  of  labor  in  a  community  is  a  loss  to  it. 

If  on  the  other  hand  the  deficit  is  not  caused  by  any 
inefficiency  it  merely  means  that  the  consumers  of 
service  receive  more  service  than  they  pay  for.  And 
surely  they  cannot  complain  about  that.  If  the  con- 
sumers of  service  of  the  post  office,  which  means  the 
people  in  general,  are  dissatisfied  because  they  are  likely 
to  receive  more  than  they  pay  for,  they  ought  to  be  very 
well  satisfied  with  our  great  monopolies,  like  the  Stan- 
dard Oil  Company,  which  are  careful  to  insure  them 
against  any  such  calamity.  There  are  no  deficits  in  the 
operation  of  great  monopolies.  The  consumer  is  re- 
quired to  provide  against  that.  The  man  who  complains 
because  the  post  office  does  not  charge  enough  to  pro- 
vide against  an  occasional  deficit  ought  not  to  complain 
of  the  methods  of  the  trusts.  It  is  a  mistake  they 
never  make. 

But,  although  a  deficit  is  not  per  se  an  evidence  of  loss, 
it  may  be  a  source  of  inconvenience,  and  in  industries 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  153 

conducted  according  to  the  premium  system  of  socialism 
it  would  be.  The  method  of  fixing  prices  would,  in  all 
but  the  rarest  cases,  provide  against  deficits,  but  occa- 
sionally, from  some  unforeseen  circumstance,  a  deficit 
might  occur  in  an  industry,  and  in  order  to  keep  the 
system  running  smoothly  means  of  preventing  it  should 
be  devised. 

A  device  which  would  seem  to  accomplish  th-e  result 
desired  is  that  of  deficit  insurance,  which  would  insure 
an  industry  against  all  unavoidable  causes  of  deficit  in- 
stead of  against  specific  causes  only.  Such  an  expedient 
could  not  be  applied  to  capitalism  because  it  would  give 
the  capitalist  both  the  incentive  and  the  opportunity  to 
create  artificial  deficits  for  purposes  of  profit,  on  the 
same  principle  that  certain  persons  burn  down  property 
which  is  over-insured.  But  under  the  premium  system 
of  socialism  the  entire  operating  force  would  have  the 
same  motives  to  avoid  deficits  that  the  ordinary  house 
owner  has  to  avoid  setting  his  house  on  fir-e,  and  hence 
deficit  insurance  could  be  applied.  Of  course,  precau- 
tions in  its  application  would  be  required,  just  as  with 
other  kinds  of  insurance.  For  instance,  there  should 
be  only  a  temporary  insurance  against  deficits  arising 
from  a  falling  off  in  the  demand  for  the  products  of  an 
industry,  and  there  would  be  no  need  of  any  other,  since 
the  fall  in  wages  in  such  understimulated  industries 
would  automatically  transfer  a  suitable  portion  of  the 
operating  force  to  overstimulated  industries  where  over- 
time work  would  tend  to  prevail,  and  where  wages  would 
be  high.  These  matters,  however,  are  details  and  rather 
technical  for  discussion  here.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
socialism  can  avoid  deficits  in  industry  whenever  it  is 
necessary  or  desirable.  They  need  constitute  the  least 
of  its  worries.  It  is  efficiency  deficits,  not  money  defi- 
cits, which  menace  the  welfare  of  a  community. 


154    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

t  I 

How  Will  Socialism  Deal  with  the  Lazy  and  Incom- 
petent? Another  matter  that  gives  people  concern  is 
how  socialism  will  deal  with  the  incompetent  and  the 
willfully  lazy. 

The  redeemably  incompetent  will  be  rede-emed  by 
suitable  vocational  training  open  on  equal  terms  to  all. 
The  irredeemably  incompetent  will  have  to  be  maintained 
at  the  expense  of  the  community  in  one  way  or  another, 
just  as  they  are  to-day.  Probably  the  best  way  is  to 
maintain  them  at  public  rather  than  private  expense. 
Such  a  policy,  like  that  of  insurance,  distributes  the  bur- 
den and  increases  the  security  of  the  individual. 

The  willfully  lazy  will  either  work  or  starve.  They 
will  not  be  abk,  by  choosing  the  proper  parents,  to  avoid 
doing  either  as  they  can  under  capitalism.  Under 
socialism  each  person,  competent  to  do  so,  will  have 
to  do  his  share  of  the  work  that  must  be  done.  He 
cannot  live  mer-ely  by  owning  something.  If  he  does 
not  care  to  consume  much  he  will  not  be  called  upon  to 
produce  much;  but  in  order  to  live  he  must  consume 
something,  and  socialism  does  not  propose  to  permit  any 
able-bodied  adult  to  "eat  the  bread  that  some  one  else 
has  toiled  and  worked  to  produce."  If  necessary,  a 
work-house  system  can  be  installed  to  take  care  of  those 
who  wish  to  sponge  on  society.  The  work  there  will  be 
of  a  character  to  enhance  the  attractiveness  of  other 
jobs.  It  will  therefore  tend  automatically  to  empty 
itself  into  other  places  of  employment.  Under  socialism 
the  idle  poor  will  not  tramp  the  railway-track,  nor  the  idle 
rich  the  golf-course,  as  they  do  under  capitalism.  The 
plans  do  not  call  for  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  be  carried  out. 

How  Will  Socialism  Insure  the  Thrift  Necessary  for 
the  Accumulation  of  Capital?  As  pointed  out  on  page 
63,  there  are  two  ways  at  present  in  vogue  for  per- 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  155 

forming  public  functions.  The  democratic  way — let  the 
public  attend  to  its  own  busin-ess,  and  the  undemocratic 
way — "Let  George  do  it."  The  provision  of  the  capital 
necessary  for  the  operation  of  public  industry  is  a  pub- 
lic function,  and  socialism  takes  the  democratic,  as  capi^ 
talism  takes  the  undemocratic,  way  of  performing  it. 

Under  socialism,  therefore,  capital  for  the  operation 
of  public  functions  will  be  raised,  as  it  generally  is  by 
the  government  to-day,  by  taxation.  The  provision  of 
capital  to  be  used  for  the  service  of  the  public  is  the 
public's  business ;  so  the  public  will  attend  to  it.  Capital 
will  not  be  borrowed  to  be  paid  back  with  interest  unless 
some  emergency  not  easily  foreseeable  makes  it  neces- 
sary. Interest  is  payment  for  ownership,  and  any  enter- 
prise, peaceable  or  warlike,  financed  by  interest-bearing 
bonds,  pays  tribute  to  a  non-essential  factor  of  produc- 
tion. When  money  for  public  purposes  is  raised  by 
taxation  the  public  pays  for  what  it  gets  and  no  more. 
When  money  is  raised' by  bond  issues  the  public  pays  for 
4nore  than  it  gets.  If  the  bonds  bear  interest,  say  at  4%, 
and  mature  in  twenty-five  years,  it  pays  just  twice  as 
much  for  what  it  gets  as  it  needs  to  pay. 

The  people  in  order  to  raise  the  capital  required  under 
socialism  will,  of  course,  need  to  practice  the  thrift 
necessary  to  pay  for  it,  but  they  will  not  need  to  prac- 
tice the  thrift  necessary  to  pay  for  it  two  or  three  times 
over,  as  they  do  under  capitalism.  They  will  have  to 
pay  for  the  capital,  but  not  for  the  capitalist,  which 
means  that  they  will  have  to  pay  those  engaged  in  pro- 
ducing capital,  but  not  those  engaged  merely  in  owning 
it.  Thus  they  will  provide  themselves  with  capital,  but 
not  some  one  else  with  interest. 

The  relation  of  thrift  to  the  production  of  wealth  is 
worth  a  little  extended  discussion,  because  the  modern 
tendency  to  confound  the  function  of  capital  with  that 
of  the  capitalist  tends  to  confuse  the  subject. 


156    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

Wealth  may  conveniently  be  divided  into  two  classes — 
that  furnished  by  nature,  which  is  called  land,  and 
includes  natural  forces  and  raw  materials  in  general — 
and  that  created  by  man.  Man-created  wealth  may  be 
again  divided  into  two  classes.  First,  that  which  is  con- 
sumed directly,  in  other  words,  devoted  immediately  to 
human  uses,  such  as  food,  clothing,  dwelling  houses, 
furniture,  etc.,  called  consumable  goods.  And  second, 
that  which  is  used  indirectly,  in  other  words,  is  devoted 
to  the  production  of  other  wealth,  such  as  plows,  loco- 
motives, looms,  and  machinery  in  general.  Also  fac- 
tories and  the  unfinished  goods  they  work  upon.  Indeed 
all  useful  man-created  wealth  not  suitable  for  consump- 
tion. This  is  called  capital.  Sometimes  consumable 
goods  devoted  to  the  uses  of  man  in  his  capacity  as  a 
worker  or  machine  are  also  called  capital,  but  there  is 
no  need  of  entering  into  these  refinements. 

With  the  above  broad  distinction  between  consumable 
goods  and  capital  in  mind  the  relation  of  thrift  to  the 
production  of  wealth  may  be  easily  illustrated. 

Suppose  two  old-time  farmers,  A  and  B,  start  in  the 
fall  to  thresh  their  crop  of  wheat.  Suppose  A  goes 
immediately  to  his  barn,  places  the  cut  wheat  stalks  on 
the  floor  and  begins  to  tread  out  the  grain  with  his  feet, 
as  was  the  fashion  in  Bible  times.  B,  on  the  other  hand, 
instead  of  going  directly  to  the  barn,  goes  to  the  woods, 
cuts  a  couple  of  hickory  saplings,  makes  one  into  a  staff, 
the  other  into  a  club,  binds  them  together  with  a  leather 
thong,  and  thus  fashions  himself  a  flail.  He  then  pro- 
ceeds to  the  barn,  and  instead  of  treading  out  the  wheat 
with  his  feet,  he  uses  his  flail  to  thresh  it.  Both  A  and 
B  seek  the  sametend — the  separation  of  the  wheat  grains 
from  the  rest  of  the  plant,  but  in  achieving  it,  B  has 
used  thrift,  while  A  has  not.  B  has  made  preparation, 
while  A  has  not.  B  has  provided  himself  with  capital  in 
the  form  of  a  flail,  while  A  has  worked  without  capital. 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  157 

What  is  the  consequence?  If  we  assume  that  it  took  B 
all  the  morning  to  make  his  flail,  it  is  clear  that  by  noon 
time  A  has  threshed  quite  a  little  wheat  while  B  has 
threshed  none  because  he  has  been  working  on  his  flail. 
Hence  at  noon  A  is  ahead  of  B.  But  in  the  afternoon 
B,  by  the  use  of  his  improved  means  of  threshing,  is  able 
to  gain  rapidly  on  A,  and  by  the  second  day  of  thresh- 
ing will  be  well  ahead  of  him.  A,  by  not  bothering  to 
make  a  flail,  has  got  ahead  of  B  in  the  short  run,  but 
B,  by  postponing  his  threshing  operations  until  he  could 
get  capital  to  help  him,  gets  ahead  of  A  in  the  long  run. 
He  has  denied  himself  consumable  goods  (wheat)  for 
the  time  being,  it  is  true,  but  in  the  long  run  he  will  get 
his  wheat  threshed  quicker  and  easier  by  this  process  of 
thrift  than  if  he  rushed  into  his  threshing  without  any 
preparation. 

This  is  the  function  of  thrift  as  a  means  of  procuring 
capital  wherever  it  is  exercised.  The  principle  applies 
to  the  building  of  a  factory  or  a  railroad  in  just  the 
'way  it  applies  to  the  building  of  a  flail.  It  is  a  process 
of  postponing  the  immediate  procuring  of  consumable 
goods  in  order  to  get  them  easier,  or  in  greater  quantity, 
at  a  later  time.  The  postponement  is  longer,  the  num- 
ber of  persons  involved  is  greater,  and  the  scale  of  pro- 
duction is  vaster  in  the  case  of  the  shoe  factory  or  the 
steamship  than  it  is  in  the  case  of  the  flail,  but  the 
principle  is  the  sam-e.  The  community  which  exercises 
thrift  in  keeping  itself  well  supplied  with  capital  will, 
in  the  long  run,  be  better  supplied  with  consumable 
goods  than  the  one  which  fails  to  exercise  it. 

Now  the  provision  of  capital  for  public  purposes  is  a 
collective  and  not  an  individual  function.  Therefore, 
under  a  democratic  system,  collective  thrift  must  be  sub- 
stituted for  individual  thrift  in  providing  it.  Thrift  is 
necessary  to  the  provision  of  capital  merely  because  it 
takes  labor  to  produce  capital.    Hence  the  community, 


158    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

instead  of  devoting  all  of  its  labor  to  producing  consum- 
able goods  directly  must  divert  a  part  of  it  to  the  pro- 
duction of  capital,  and  this  diversion  of  its  labor  is 
thrift.  If  there  were  no  compensation  for  it,  there 
would  ensue  an  actual  diminution  of  its  possible  rate 
of  consumption.  But  consumable  goods  are  produced 
more  easily  and  quickly  by  the  help  of  capital  than 
without  it.  So  in  the  long  run  the  easiest  way  for  the 
public,  as  for  an  individual,  to  produce  consumable  goods 
is  to  divert  a  portion  of  its  labor  to  the  production  of  the 
capital  used  to  produce  them — to  divide  its  labor  between 
direct  and  indirect  production  of  the  goods  it  wants  to 
consume.  In  this  way  it  will  be  able  finally  to  consume 
more  by  immediately  consuming  less.  It  will  be  able 
to  avoid  the  necessity  for  less  thrift  in  the  future  by 
practicing  more  of  it  in  the  present.  By  the  pursuit  of 
this  policy  collectively,  instead  of  individually,  the  com- 
munity saves  all  interest,  profit  and  other  payment  for 
ownership  charges,  and  yet  provides  all  the  capital  it 
needs.  Thus  it  will  practice  thrift,  but  not  the  pinching 
thrift  imposed  by  capitalism. 

How  Will  Socialism  Avoid  the  Perversion  of 
Property?  Wherever  it  is  applied  socialism  vests  the 
ownership  of  property  in  those  who  use  it,  both  produc- 
tive and  consumptive  use  being  considered.  By  thus 
rendering  property  conjunctive,  payment  for  ownership 
is  abolished.  Democracy  is  reintroduced  into  the  insti- 
tution of  property  and  its  perversion  rectified.  Disjunc- 
tive property  would  practically  disappear  under  maturely 
developed  socialism  except  where  too  unimportant  to  be 
bothered  with. 

There  is  probably  at  least  one  exception  to  this  rule, 
however.  I  refer  to  the  development  of  new  processes 
and  inventions  in  general.  The  public  authorities  should 
labor  in  this  field  and  under  a  properly  designed  system 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  159 

of  socialism  will  surely  do  so.  But  they  should  not  dis- 
courage private  efforts.  If  any  man,  or  group  of  men, 
independent  of  government  support,  can  develop  new 
and  useful  methods  of  doing  things,  by  all  means  let 
them  do  so.  Only,  by  the  time  their  enterprise  reaches 
the  stage  of  a  public  industry  its  operation  should  be 
assumed  by  the  community,  at  a  liberal  compensation, 
and  those  who  developed  the  beneficent  innovation  cor- 
dially invited  to  repeat  their  performance. 

There  is  a  proposed  institution  often  confused  with 
socialism  which  should  be  mentioned  at  this  point.  It 
resembles  socialism  in  some  respects,  but  its  resemblance 
to  capitalism  is  greater,  because  it  retains  the  principle 
of  disjunctive  property.  I  refer  to  what  is  commonly 
called  syndicalism,  which  proposes  to  place  each  industry 
under  control,  amounting  to  ownership,  of  those  who 
operate  it.  This  expedient  does  not  conjoin  owner- 
ship and  use  but  only  ownership  and  operation.  It  con- 
fuses the  operator  of  a  means  of  production  with  the 
user  of  it,  and  hence  fails  to  democratize  property. 
The  distinction  between  the  user  and  operator  of  capital 
is  pointed  out  in  Chapter  II.  He  who  ignores  it  does  not 
understand  the  complexity  of  the  def-ects  of  capitalism. 
Syndicalism  recognizes  only  one  aspect  of  the  evil  of 
capitalism,  the  so-called  class-conflict  or  labor  problem. 
Hence  it  only  proposes  to  patch  the  system  instead  of 
eliminating  it.  Syndicalism  is  only  one  form  of  capi- 
talism and  gives  little  promise  of  material  improvement 
over  present  conditions.  It  only  substitutes  one  set  of 
capitalists  for  anoth-er.  To  get  results  we  require  an 
abolition,  not  an  exchange,  of  oligarchies.  It  may  very 
well  prove  wise  under  socialism  to  vest  much  of  the 
internal  management  of  an  industry  in  the  operating 
force  thereof ;  but  the  power  thus  vested  in  the  operators 
must  be  a  delegated  and  not  a  sovereign  power  if  de- 
mocracy is  to  prevail.     The  people  must  be  the  only 


160    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

sovereign.     It  is  useless  to  abolish  a  conflict  of  classes 
only  to  replace  it  by  a  conflict  of  sovereignties. 

How  Will  Socialism  Solve  the  Labor  and  "Trust" 
Problems?  By  the  labor  problem  is  meant  the  series 
of  evils  which,  under  capitalism,  arise  from  the  conflict 
of  interest  between  employer  and  employee,  and  by  the 
trust  problem  the  evils  which  arise  from  the  conflict  be- 
tween producer  and  consumer.  To  him  who  under- 
stands capitalism  these  two  symptoms  are  seen  to  be  due 
to  the  same  disease,  and  socialism  solves  them  both  by 
the  same  remedy.  It  abolishes  the  capitalist,  and  as 
nearly  as  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  principle  of 
division  of  function  permit,  makes  employer  and  em- 
ployee, producer  and  consumer,  the  same ;  and  thus  iden- 
tifies their  interests. 

It  is  important  that  the  method  by  which  socialism 
proposes  to  avoid  the  conflicts  of  interest  which  are  so 
obvious  in  industrial  society  to-day,  should  be  thoroughly 
understood.  Therefore,  I  will  recall  to  your  attention 
the  bearing  of  previous  discussions  on  this  question.  In 
Chapter  II  it  was  pointed  out  that  capitalism  developed 
from  individualism  through  three  stages:  1st,  division 
of  function,  2nd,  bargaining,  and  3rd,  payment  for 
ownership.  The  last  two  stages  grew  out  of  the  first 
one  and  are  the  causes  of  modern  industrial  conflict. 
Now  socialism  proposes  to  retain  the  first  stage  but  take 
steps  to  prevent  its  development  into  the  second  and 
third  stages.  The  change  from  individualism  which  it 
proposes  to  compass  may  be  compared  to  the  change 
of  a  unicellular  into  a  multicellular  organism. 

In  a  single-celled  organism,  as  in  farmer  Jonathan's 
family,  all  functions  necessary  to  life  are  performed  by 
the  same  unit,  the  family  corre^onding  to  the  cell ;  but 
in  an  organism  composed  of  many  cells,  such  as  the 
human  body,  there  is  a  division  of  function,  some  cells 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  161 

performing  nervous  functions,  others  digestive,  others 
reproductive,  etc.  This  corresponds  to  modern  society 
with  its  diverse  division  of  function  among  the  various 
individuals  and  famiHes.  But  recall  this,  please:  No 
cell  of  the  human  body  practices  bargaining  or  receives 
payment  for  ownership.  The  body  performs  its  func- 
tions not  according  to  the  capitalist,  but  according  to  the 
socialist  plan.  It  is  a  cooperative  commonwealth  of 
cells  and  bears  to  th-e  unicellular  organism  the  same  rela- 
tion that  the  cooperative  commonwealth  of  socialism 
bears  to  the  miniature  cooperative  commonwealth  typi- 
fied by  the  family  of  farmer  Jonathan. 

Now  it  is  important  to  prevent  active  conflict  of  inter- 
est arising  out  of  th-e  division  of  function  in  a  com- 
munity, but  it  IS  also  important  to  retain  the  active 
identity  of  interest  characteristic  of  individualism. 
What  I  mean  is  this :  Every  tim^  farmer  Jonathan  puts 
in  a  stroke  for  himself  as  a  producer  he  puts  in  a  stroke 
for  the  consumer.  He  cannot  help  it,  because  he  is 
consumer  as  well  as  producer.  Now  how  shall  we  re- 
tain this  active  identity  of  interest  under  socialism  where 
producer  and  consumer,  owing  to  division  of  function, 
are  not  the  same  person  or  within  the  same  family? 
One  expedient  for  doing  this  is  illustrated  by  the  third 
feature  of  the  premium  system  of  socialism  (page  144^ 
— the  division  of  the  surplus  of  industry  between  pro- 
ducer and  consumer.  The  larger  the  surplus  is,  the 
better  for  the  producer — and  the  better  for  the  consumer 
also.  Hence  every  time  the  producer  puts  in  a  stroke 
which  improves  efficiency,  saves  waste,  or  otherwise 
tends  to  increase  this  surplus,  he  puts  in  a  stroke  for 
himself,  and  a  stroke  for  the  consumer  also;  just  as 
farmer  Jonathan  does  when  he  works  for  himself  alone. 
To  benefit  both  producer  and  consumer  by  improvements 
in  the  means  and  efficiency  of  production  there  should 
be  a  simultaneous  increase  of  income  to  the  one  and 


162    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

decrease  of  outgo  to  the  other.  This  result  is  secured 
by  the  proposed  premium  system,  which  automatically 
causes  prices  to  fall  as  wages  rise. 

Briefly,  this  is  the  method  by  which  socialism  pro- 
poses to  solve  the  labor  and  trust  problems.  If  a  better 
solution  is  available,  what  is  it?  How  for  instance  does 
capitalism  propose  to  solve  them? 

How  Will  Socialism  Promote  Productive  Efficiency? 

The  problem  of  promoting  the  productive  efficiency  of 
society  is  a  vast  and  technical  one.  Only  a  suggestion 
of  general  methods  can  be  touched  upon  here. 

The  first  essential  for  avoiding  the  productive  ineffi- 
ciency of  capitalism  is  to  substitute  plan  for  planlessness 
and  cooperation  for  competition  throughout  the  field 
of  industry.  By  causing  men  to  pull  together  instead  of 
apart,  by  systematizing  the  work  of  society,  converting 
its  productive  forces  from  an  industrial  mob  into  an 
industrial  army  and  applying  to  the  wealth-producing 
system  as  a  whole  the  scientific  cooperative  methods 
practiced  in  a  well  managed  factory  of  to-day,  the 
product  per  capita  is  capable  of  being  augmented  in  a 
degree  unimagined  by  those  who  have  not  studied  the 
subject.  Some  beginnings  in  this  direction  have  been 
made  by  our  giant  corporations,  but  as  is  inevitable  under 
capitalism,  they  are  largely  perverted  to  harmful  ends. 
In  a  bungling  way  government  operations  are  groping 
toward  the  light  also,  but  are  handicapped,  not  only  by 
the  precedents  of  capitalism  which  are  followed  wher- 
ever they  well  can  be,  but  by  two  peculiar  disadvantages 
which  would  be  absent  under  socialism. 

First,  they  are  the  victims  of  the  corrupt  politics  char- 
acteristic of  countries  dominated  by  capitalism.  They 
are  particularly  hampered  by  legislatures,  which  are 
notorious  for  their  subservience  to  the  money  power. 
The  opposition  of  these  bodies  far  more  than  the  ineffi- 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  163 

ciency  of  administrators  is  responsible  for  the  disap- 
pointing results  of  public  operation.  Our  law  makers 
are  pledged  to  capitalism.  They  support  it  both  from 
interest  and  training.  How  then  can  they  be  exj>ected 
to  exert  themselves  to  prove  the  efficacy  of  an  opposing 
principle?  It  is  well  known,  for  instance,  that  the  ex- 
press companies  of  this  country  prevented  for  many 
years  the  adoption  of  the  national  parcels  post,  thereby 
imposing  an  enormous  tax  upon  the  people.  They  did 
this  through  Congress,  and  similar  influences  are  at  pres- 
ent seeking  to  prevent  further  beneficent  extensions  of 
the  same  service.  This  crippling  of  the  public  service 
where  it  is  to  the  profit  of  private  interests  to  cripple  it 
is  characteristic  of  the  conduct  of  legislatures  when 
public  opinion  is  not  strong  or  alert  enough  to  change 
the  usual  situation.  Public  operation  is  not  generally 
resorted  to  until  private  operation  has  become  so  tangled 
as  to  be  objectionable  even  to  the  owners  of  the  wrecked 
properties.  Then  things  move  quickly,  because  public 
operation  then  means  government  salvage  of  private 
property.  It  is  all  a  part  of  the  baneful  effect  of 
oligarchy  in  contact  with  democracy.  Our  notorious 
political  corruption  is  merely  a  reflection  of  the  capital- 
istic ideal  pursued  in  industry.  It  is  business  applied 
to  politics. 

Second,  they  are  mere  fragments  of  cooperation  float- 
ing in  the  midst  of  a  chaos  of  competition  instead  of 
organic  parts  of  a  cooperative  commonwealth,  and  so 
cannot  attain  the  efficiency  they  would  assume  in  a  con- 
sistent system.  Consider  a  singl-e  illustration  of  this 
aspect  of  the  matter.  Suppose  the  post  office  were  used 
only  for  conveying  printed  matter,  the  carriage  of  all 
other  mail  and  express  matter  being  left  in  private 
hands.  How  much  do  you  suppose  it  would  cost  to 
convey  printed  matter  under  these  circumstances,  the 
entire  revenue  of  the  postal  service  being  derived  from 


164    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

the  carriage  of  such  matter  alone?  How  well  could  you 
judge  of  the  real  possibilities  of  a  postal  system  from 
observation  of  such  a  fragment?  The  rates  would 
necessarily  be  many  times  those  now  prevailing,  and 
shallow  critics  would  cite  this  fact  as  an  example  of  the 
inefficiency  of  public  service.  Now  the  present  postal 
service  is  the  same  kind  of  a  fragment  of  a  far  more 
extensive  system  of  which  it  should  be  an  integral  part, 
and  under  socialism  would  be.  Not  only  could  express, 
telephone,  telegraph,  insurance  and  banking  operations 
be  included  in  the  postal  service,  as  is  done  with  great 
success  in  such  countries  as  New  Zealand,  but  it  could 
be  expanded  into  an  instrumentality  for  carrying  on 
practically  all  distributive  functions  of  the  country,  co- 
operating through  publicly  owned  railroads  with  national 
productive  agencies  in  the  service  of  the  public.  And 
in  such  an  expansion  it  would  make  the  same  sort  of 
gain  in  efficiency  which  would  be  made  by  expanding 
it  from  an  agency  for  the  conveyance  of  printed  matter 
into  a  complete  mail-carrying  agency.  In  other  words  to 
make  cooperation  efficient  it  must  be  made  consistent, 
and  it  will  be  most  efficient  when  complete. 

Another  great  advantage  of  centralized  control  of  in- 
dustry is  the  ability  to  adapt  production  to  consumption 
and  thus  avoid  overproduction  and  the  consequent 
"gluts  and  crises"  mentioned  by  Bellamy.  In  the  saving 
of  transportation,  bookkeeping,  collecting,  advertising, 
dickering,  litigation,  etc.,  etc.,  incident  to  competitive 
private  operation  there  is  opportunity  to  cut  the  cost  of 
goods  and  service  very  materially.  The  whole  chaotic 
system  of  getting  products  from  a  mob  of  competing 
producers  through  a  mob  of  competing  middlemen  to  a 
mob  of  bewildered  and  bamboozled  consumers  would 
give  place  to  a  system  as  direct  and  efficient  as  that  by 
which  postage  stamps  are  distributed.  It  probably  costs 
on  the  average  fully  half  as  much  to  sell  goods  in  this 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  165 

country  as  to  produc-e  them.  Centralized  and  coopera- 
tive distribution  would  avoid  the  wastefulness  implied 
in  such  a  high  cost  of  selling. 

The  restriction  of  productive  powers  due  to  trade 
secretiveness  and  patent  monopoly  would  disappear 
under  socialism.  These  practices  constitute  a  tremen- 
dous tax  upon  human  ingenuity.  They  cause  inventors  • 
to  waste  perhaps  three-quarters  of  their  time,  either 
working  out  methods  already  worked  out  unknown  to 
them,  or  seeking  to  get  around  patents,  not  from  tech- 
nical but  from  legal  necessity.  In  place  of  this  planless 
and  wasteful  system,  socialism  would  institute  a  nation- 
or  world-wide  system  of  cooperating  laboratories  and^ 
experiment  stations,  conducted  by  expert  specialists  jV^^A 
whose  sole  function  would  be  to  devise  improvements  iiT 
the  productive  arts.  Their  ingenuity  would  be  stimu- 
lated by  bonuses,  and  the  advances  in  knowledge  made 
by  one  would  be  at  the  service  of  all.  No  secret  or 
monopoly  restrictions  would  be  allowed  to  put  one  indus- 
try at  a  disadvantage  for  the  benefit  of  another,  as  under 
capitalism.  The  technical  knowledge  of  the  world  would 
be  unhobbl-ed,  and  a  discovery  or  method  of  procedure 
made  once  would  not  need  to  be  made  again.  Here  is 
another  source  of  untapped  productive  power  whose 
magnitude  is  unimagined  by  any  save  those  familiar  with 
the  present  appalling  waste  of  technical  effort. 

Perhaps  no  criticism  of  socialism  is  so  common  as  that 
directed  to  its  alleged  failure  to  provide  "incentive"  for 
efficiency  in  the  production  of  wealth.  Yet  where  under 
capitalism  can  be  found  a  system  of  incentive  to  be  com- 
pared with  the  premium  system,  whereby  every  operative 
in  an  industrial  establishment  from  director  to  lumper 
is  given  a  personal  financial  incentive  to  increase  his 
efficiency  and  that  of  his  fellows  to  the  utmost,  and 
whereby  the  interests  of  manager  and  operative  are 
rendered  identical  with  one  another,  and  with  those  of  the 


166    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

consumer,  so  that  all  pull  together  ?  The  incentive  which 
stimulates  the  private  business  man  working  for  his  own 
exclusive  profit,  the  incentive  so  lauded  by  economists, 
is  here  applied  to  every  operative  in  industry  and  directed 
to  public  service. 

The  nearest  approach  to  the  premium  system  of  social- 
ism to  be  found  in  private  .industry  is  profit-sharing, 
which  seeks  to  apply  the  same  principle.  But  when  so 
much  of  the  product  of  labor  must  be  diverted  to  pay- 
ment for  ownership  the  principle  cannot  be  consistently 
applied.  The  worker's  share  is  usually  too  small  to 
compensate  for  low  wages,  and  the  consumer  seldom 
receives  any  share  at  all.  Capitalism  puts  the  capitalist 
in  such  an  antagonistic  position  with  respect  to  both 
producer  and  consumer  that  even  such  a  good  principle 
as  that  of  profit-sharing  is  spoiled  in  application,  since 
before  the  capitalist  can  share  his  profit  either  with  pro- 
ducer or  consumer  he  has  got  to  extract  it  from  them. 
Thus  the  sharer  becomes  a  sharee. 
r--  Consider  also  th<e  vast  waste  in  strikes  and  other 
j  labor  disturbances  under  capitalism.  All  this  will  be 
\  saved  under  socialism.  A  self -employing  people  will 
not  strike  against  themselves  any  more  than  farmer 
Jonathan  strikes  against  himself.  When  wages  and  prices 
are  determined,  and  the  whole  management  of  industry  is 
conducted,  on  a  non-arbitrary  basis,  by  the  people  them- 
selves, through  those  to  whom  they  have  delegated  power, 
labor  disturbances  will  cease.  The  worker  will  not  need 
to  struggle  against  an  oppressor,  because  he  certainly  will 
not  try  to  oppress  himself,  and  there  is  no  one  else  to 
oppress  him. 

Besides  the  general  premium  system  of  socialism,  indi- 
vidual or  group  bonus  systems,  such  as  those  used  by 
efficiency  engineers,  can  be  employed  to  stimulate  incen- 
tive land  as  the,  ^"^^^p'^t  ^^  ^H  persons  in  anestablishment 
js_the  same,  no  such  opposition  to  the  Introduction  oF 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  167 

5£ieatific  management  would  be  encount€red  as  under 
capitalism.  In  short,  there  is  not  a  single  method  of 
increasing  productive  efficiency  to  be  found  in  the  pres- 
ent system  which  cannot  be  applied  to  socialism,  usually 
with  far  greater  effectiveness;  while  there  are  several 
expedients  for  increasing  it  which  socialism  can  employ 
and  capitalism  cannot.  Moreover,  even  those  which 
capitalism  employs  as  incidents  in  its  zeal  for  commercial 
efficiency  are  applied  primarily  to  the  increase  of  private 
profit,  whereas  those  employed  by  socialism  are  applied 
exclusively  to  public  service.  This  is  a  point  worth 
remembering  when  comparing  the  two  systems. 

The  present  war  has  taught  the  public  much  about 
the  relation  of  profiteering  to  public  interest.  Profiteer- 
ing is  universally  recognized  as  wrong  in  war  time. 
But  it  is  only  wrong  in  war  because  it  is  opposed  to  the 
public  interest.  Well,  it  is  as  much  opposed  to  the  public 
interest  in  peace.  Therefore  if  it  is  wrong  in  war  it  is 
wrong  in  peace.  Profiteering  is  only  another  name  for 
capitalism  in  action.  It  is  a  normal  product  of  the 
disjunctive  property  relation.  It  has  no  necessary  rela- 
tion to  the  application  of  science  to  production  despite 
the  efforts  of  many  economists  to  confound  the  two 
principles.  Socialism  will  eliminate  the  one  principle 
while  retaining  the  other,  thus  preserving  the  advantages 
of  the  present  system  of  production  while  discarding  its 
disadvantages. 

How  Will  Socialism  Promote  Distributive  Effi- 
ciency? Socialism  will  avoid  the  distributive  ineffi- 
ciency of  capitalism  by  abolishing  the  disjunctive  form 
of  property  which  causes  it,  and  retaining  the  conjunc- 
tive form  which  does  not  cause  it.  As  shown  in  Chapter 
V,  when  men  are  paid  in  proportion  to  what  they  own, 
wealth  soon  becomes  concentrated  in  a  few  hands,  and 
the  tendency  to  consume  either  at  too  high  or  too  low  a 


168    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

rate  for  efficiency  continually  increases.  Riches  and 
poverty  make  equal  progress.  But  when  men  are  paid 
in  proportion  to  what  they  do,  the  only  departure  from 
equality  of  income  is  that  required  to  supply  the  demand 
for  those  who  do  the  difficult  work  of  society — difficult 
either  from  its  arduousness  or  from  the  thought  and 
application  required  to  perform  it.  Such  a  departure 
will  be  but  moderate.  Moreover,  high  incomes  under 
socialism  will  represent  large  service  to  society.  Under 
capitalism  they  usually  represent  a  large  investment  only. 
In  many  cases  they  represent  actual  disservice,  and  are 
proportional  to  it.  In  other  cases,  to  be  sure,  they  repre- 
sent service,  but  under  capitalism  there  is  no  necessary 
connection  between  service  and  income,  whereas  under 
socialism  there  is.  The  distribution  of  wealth  under 
socialism  clearly  tends  toward  equality  and  hence  toward 
that  moderate  rate  of  consumption  which  leads  to  high 
efficiency.  (See  page  ii8.)  Instead  of  a  system  tend- 
ing constantly  to  a  condition  of  extreme  wealth  accom- 
panied by  extreme  poverty,  as  under  capitalism,  social- 
ism will  tend  to  a  condition  where  there  are  no  very 
rich  and  no  very  poor,  but  where  practically  the  whole 
population  will  have  enough,  and  be  secure  in  it.  Only 
the  willfully  lazy,  incompetent  or  extravagant  need  suffer 
from  poverty  under  socialism. 

How  Will  Socialism  Promote  Consumptive  Effi- 
ciency? As  noted  on  page  128  the  subject  of  con- 
sumptive efficiency  is  usually  neglected  by  socialists  as 
by  most  others.  It  is,  however,  as  worthy  of  attention 
as  productive  efficiency.  Indeed  the  relation  of  produc- 
tive efficiency  to  utility  cannot  be  grasped  without  some 
attention  to  it,  because  it  is  as  important  to  use  wealth 
efficiently  after  it  has  been  produced  as  to  produce  it 
efficiently.  How  then  will  socialism  tend  to  promote  its 
efficient  use? 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  169 

In  the  first  place,  by  making  impossible  the  amassing 
of  excessive  fortunes,  socialism  will  render  impossible 
the  indulgence  in  excessive  luxury.  This  will  increase 
consumptive  efficiency.  But  further  results  will  follow. 
Under  present  conditions  the  bad  example  of  the  rich 
is  a  greater  €vil  than  their  indulgence,  because  it  spreads 
inefficiency  so  widely.  The  effort  to  imitate  or  keep 
pace  with  the  idle  rich  is  infectious  and  demoralizes  even 
the  poor.  It  breeds  luxurious  habits,  not  only  among 
those  who  can  afford  them,  but  among  those  who  cannot. 
Obviously  this  has  a  very  depressing  effect  on  consump- 
tive efficiency  throughout  the  community. 

Socialism  would  in  very  large  measure  remove  this 
evil,  because  not  only  would  it  make  excessive  luxury 
impossible,  but  it  would  remove  from  luxury  and  oppor- 
tunity for  idleness  the  respectability  which  it  so  con- 
spicuously enjoys  to-day.  This  would  be  an  effective 
means  of  discouragement,  for  nothing  is  more  generally 
prized  than  respectability.  The  ambition  set  before 
"every  youth  in  the  nation  to-day  is  to  accumulate  wealth 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  able  to  live  on  the  income 
from  it,  and  thus  be  supported  in  idleness  if  he  wants  to 
be.  Those  who  most  successfully  attain  this  goal  are 
most  honored  and  respected  under  capitalism.  For  this 
ambition  socialism  would  substitute  public  service  as  a 
goal,  and  those  who  most  successfully  served  the  public 
would  be  most  honored  and  respected.  Thus  would 
luxury  and  the  love  of  luxury  be  discouraged. 

In  the  second  place  the  same  expedient  which  elimi- 
nates the  evil  of  luxury  eliminates  that  of  its  counterpart, 
squalor.  This  has  been  emphasized  in  previous  pages 
and  needs  no  further  comment. 

To  attain  really  high  efficiency  of  consumption  a  de- 
liberate system  of  education,  beginning  very  early  in  life, 
is  essential.  The  methods  of  such  a  system  cannot  be 
specified,  because  they  are  as  yet  undeveloped.     But  the 


170    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

I  I 

objects  are  plain.  The  qualities  to  be  cultivated  are 
simplicity  and  variety  of  taste,  scantiness  of  need,  and 
the  power  to  easily  adjust  desires  to  the  available  means 
of  gratifying  them.  For  happiness  can  be  secured  more 
cheaply  if  wants  can  be  easily  adapted  to  circumstances, 
than  if  circumstances  must  always  be  adapted  to  wants. 
If  a  man  can  be  so  trained  that  he  can  get  a  steady 
supply  of  happiness  by  merely  walking  in  a  pasture,  as 
Thoreau  could,  it  is  clear  that  he  will  be  a  more  efficient 
agent  in  securing  it  than  if  his  happiness  depends  upon 
eating  rich  food,  riding  in  expensive  motor  cars  and 
wearing  jewels.  The  development  both  of  simplicity 
and  luxury  in  taste  is  principally  a  matter  of  education, 
and  the  usefulness  of  the  reasonable  system  of  produc- 
tion which  socialism  proposes  can  be  greatly  increased 
if  it  is  accompanied  by  a  reasonable  system  of  education 
in  consumption. 

How  Will  Socialism  Provide  Leisure?  The  fact 
that  socialism  provides  no  method  of  living  by  ownership 
tends  to  create  the  impression  that  it  will  doom  mankind 
to  a  life  of  grinding  drudgery,  with  no  hope  for  leisure 
even  in  old  age.  Such  a  view  is  natural  to  those  who 
gauge  the  possibilities  of  other  institutions  by  those  of 
capitalism.  Under  the  present  system  it  is  true,  only 
the  capitalist  can  enjoy  leisure  in  anything  but  very  small 
doses.  The  worker's  life  is  a  steady  grind  without  hope 
of  cessation.  If  socialism  is  tcf  convert  all  men  into 
workers  only  to  present  them  with  the  life  of  workers 
under  capitalism,  it  cannot  justify  itself.  As  a  cure  for 
capitalism  it  will  be  worse  than  the  disease.  But  it  pro- 
poses no  such  thing.  It  proposes  to  convert  the  whole 
people  into  a  working  class  and  then  convert  the  work- 
ing class  into  a  leisure  class.  Not  that  life  under 
socialism  will  be  all  leisure ;  but  it  will  in  a  high  degree 
be  emancipated  from  compulsory  drudgery,  always  as- 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  171 

suming  of  course  that  the  principle  of  the  institution  is 
carried  out  properly. 

Socialism  will  produce  leisure  throughout  the  com- 
munity by  automatically  shortening  the  hours  of  labor 
as  the  efficiency  of  production  and  consumption  in- 
creases, its  aim  being  to  let  machinery  do  the  producing 
while  man  does  the  consuming.  Thus  inanimate  things 
will  attend  to  the  unpleasant  part  of  production,  while 
man  will  attend  to  the  pleasant  part,  and  to  the  consump- 
tion. At  least  this  is  the  ideal  to  be  approached.  With 
society  organized  into  a  cooperative  commonwealth 
every  increase  in  the  rate  of  production  and  every  de- 
crease in  the  rate  of  consumption  can  be  reflected  in 
increased  leisure  throughout  the  community,  as  readily 
as  it  could  in  the  miniature  cooperative  commonwealth 
of  farmer  Jonathan's  family.  The  automatism  with 
which  leisure  is  produced  can  be  realized  by  examining 
the  working  of  the  system  discussed  in  previous  pages  of 
this  chapter.  It  is  not  nAessary  to  redescribe  the 
process  in  detail.  Moreover,  each  individual  can  take 
his  leisure  in  large  or  small  doses,  according  to  his  tastes. 
If  his  tastes  are  expensive,  he  will  have  to  work  longer 
to  get  the  money  to  gratify  them,  and  then  his  leisure 
will  be  curtailed.  If  they  are  simple,  he  can  save  his 
money,  and  take  long  but  inexpensive  vacations  when  he 
wants  to,  supporting  himself  on  his  savings,  not  on  the 
interest  on  them,  as  under  capitalism.  Actual  savings 
come  from  a  man's  own  labor.  Th-e  interest  on  them 
comes  from  the  labor  of  other  men,  and  under  social- 
ism no  man  will  be  permitted  to  live  the  consumptive  part 
of  another  man's  life  for  him.  Division  of  function 
will  not  take  the  form  it  takes  under  capitalism,  where 
one  class  absorbs  most  of  the  leisure,  and  another  class 
most  of  the  labor,  of  life.  The  consumptive  inefficiency 
of  such  a  system  is  too  low  to  be  tolerated  under  a  scien- 
tific way  of  conducting  society. 


172    AMERICAlSriZED  SOCIALISM 

The  best  method  of  insuring  leisure  in  the  latter  part 
of  life  is  by  old  age  insurance.  This  takes  a  load  of 
care  off  men's  earlier  years,  and  permits  them  to  spend 
their  money  for  leisure  or  recreation  without  worrying 
about  the  security  of  their  declining  years.  Insurance 
against  accident,  sickness,  and  indeed  all  unavoidable 
risks  should  also  be  provided  under  a  sane  system  of 
society.  Indeed  it  probably  should  be  compulsory,  be- 
cause without  it  a  man  would  risk  becoming  a  burden 
to  his  friends,  as  well  as  to  himself.  Socialism  would 
provide  all  these  forms  of  security  at  cost,  and  thus  at 
a  minimum  of  expense. 

Society  can  be  emancipated  from  drudgery  only  by 
emancipating  itself.  It  cannot,  like  an  individual,  live 
upon  the  labor  of  others.  The  general  methods  of  eman- 
cipation have  been  suggested,  but  it  is  important  to  point 
out  that  society  should  take  steps  not  only  to  increase 
leisure,  but  to  utilize  it  efficiently.  The  best  way  is  to 
utilize  it  in  the  creation  of*  knowledge,  or  in  some  other 
form  of  pleasurable  production,  for  it  seems  fair  to 
classify  work  that  is  pleasurable  under  the  same  head 
with  leisure.  It  might  be  called  productive  leisure  to 
distinguish  it  from  the  consumptive  kind.  Both  kinds 
should  be  prepared  for  by  appropriate  education  in 
youth,  but  the  subject  is  too  detailed  for  discussion  here. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  that  socialism  can  secure  leisure  for 
society,  instead  of  for  a  small  class  thereof,  as  capitalism 
does,  that  it  can  turn  it  to  more  useful  account  than 
capitalism  does  in  the  lives  of  its  idle  rich,  and  that  it 
can  do  it  without  resorting  to  the  destructive  expedient 
of  payment  for  ownership. 

How  Will  Socialism  Keep  the  Population  Within 
Safe  Limits?  It  is  clear  that  under  no  system  can 
the  population  of  a  country  increase  indefinitely  aiid 
remain   happy.     The   law   of   diminishing   returns   will 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIEISrCY  173 

sooner  or  later  operate  too  effectively  to  be  nullified  by 
any  attainable  effectiveness  in  the  operation  of  the  law  of 
increasing  returns,  and  the  result  will  be  increasing 
poverty.  Most  economists  recognize  the  threat  of  over- 
population. In  Europe,  and  even  more  so  in  Asia,  it  is 
much  more  than  a  threat,  it  is  an  actuality.  Nowhere, 
of  course,  has  overpopulation  reached  its  limit,  but  in 
eastern  Asia  it  has  approached  it  closely  enough  to 
satisfy  all  but  the  wildest  opponent  of  the  Malthusian 
principle.  Most  economists  also  recognize  that  capital- 
ism cannot  prevent  overpopulation.  At  any  rate  it  has 
thus  far  shown  no  signs  of  doing  it.  Moreover,  its  tend- 
ency to  produce  poverty  in  large  masses  of  the  people 
makes  it  a  direct  cause  of  overpopulation,  since  it  is 
among  the  poor  and  ignorant  that  the  birthrate  is  most 
exc-essive.  Socialism,  on  the  other  hand,  by  doing  away 
with  poverty  and  ignorance  will  do  away  with  the  ex- 
cessive birthrate  which  accompanies  them,  and  thus  keep 
the  population  within  safe  limits. 

Most  socialists  and  reformers  seem  to  think  that  by 
sufficiently  increasing  the  efficiency  of  production,  danger 
of  overpopulation  can  be  avoided.  This  is  an  error,  and 
a  dangerous  one.  Increase  in  productive  efficiency  is  a 
necessary  condition  for  the  abolition  of  poverty,  but  it 
is  not  a  sufficient  one.  The  invention  of  agriculture  in 
ancient  times  in  India,  for  instance,  caused  a  vast  in- 
crease in  the  efficiency  of  food  production  there.  Before 
its  invention,  the  inhabitants  lived  by  the  crude  methods 
of  the  chase.  But  did  it  prevent  poverty?  No.  It  in- 
creased it  by  increasing  the  number,  if  not  the  per  capita 
misery,  of  the  poor.  Before  the  invention  of  agriculture 
perhaps  the  number  of  starving  wretches  in  India  was 
2,000,000  or  so.  After  its  introduction  the  number  of 
starving  wretches  was  200,000,000.  Instead  of  increas- 
ing the  per  capita  rate  of  consumption,  it  merely  in- 
creased the  population.     Thus  one  of  the  greatest  of 


174    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  I 

improvements  in  the  productive  arts  made  matters  worse 
instead  of  better  in  the  community  it  should  have  serveci. 
It  increased  misery  instead  of  decreasing  it.  And  this 
will  always  be  the  effect  of  such  improvements  in  the 
long  run  if  means  are  not  found  for  preventing  an  ex- 
cessive birthrate.  Socialism  by  its  tendency  to  abolish 
the  poor,  and  therefore  fast  breeding,  class  among  the 
population  supplies  such  a  means.  The  chances  are  it 
will  be  sufficient  to  accomplish  the  desired  result.  But 
should  it  prove  otherwise,  some  form  of  birth  control 
would  be  necessary  to  prevent  the  ultimate  conversion 
of  socialism  from  a  blessing  into  a  curse  to  mankind. 

How  Will  Socialism  Abolish  Poverty?  On  page 
126  the  conditions  necessary  for  the  abolition  of  poverty 
are  enumerated.  In  the  five  sections  preceding  this  one 
the  general  methods  which  socialism  would,  or  at  any 
rate  could,  adopt  to  attain  these  conditions,  have  been 
briefly  discussed.  These  are  the  methods  th-erefore 
whereby  socialism  proposes  to  abolish  poverty.  There  is 
hardly  room  to  challenge  the  soundness  of  the  principles 
invoked.  The  only  issue  is  that  of  details  of  application. 
Indeed  there  is  little  disposition  to  question  the  basic 
principles  of  socialism.  Even  those  economists  who  pro- 
fess to  do  so,  do  not  really  do  it.  Examine  any  serious 
argument  against  the  program  of  socialism  and  it  will 
be  found  to  assume  som-e  fault  in  the  method  of  applica- 
tion, some  failure  in  the  use  of  incentive,  some  oversight 
in  provision  for  saving,  some  bungling  in  the  prevention 
of  bureaucracy.  All  such  matters  are  details  which  the 
patient  application  of  intelligence  can  master.  They  are 
not  defects  of  principle.  The  proper  working  out  of 
details  is,  of  course,  as  essential  to  the  success  of  social- 
ism as  the  adoption  of  sound  principles.  If,  however, 
socialism  makes  possible  the  application  of  principles 
which  will  abolish  poverty,  then  it  is  a  proposal  of  great 


DEMOCRACY  WITH  EFFICIENCY  175 

promise,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  all  those  interested  in  the 
service  of  humanity  to  help  work  out  its  proper  applica- 
tion. Capitalism  can  never  abolish  poverty  because  its 
principles  are  wrong.  To  perfect  its  details  with  such 
an  object  in  view  then  is  but  labor  lost.  It  is  a  waste 
of  time.  As  well  seek  to  convert  a  wheelbarrow  into  a 
flying  machine  by  perfecting  its  details.  Socialism,  on 
the  other  hand,  has  possibilities.  It  is  like  Stephenson's 
first  locomotive  which,  though  crude,  embodied  sound 
principles  and  only  needed  proper  details  to  be  a  success. 
The  purely  mechanical  difficulties  of  an  institution  as  of 
a  machine  can  be  overcome,  if  not  by  one  expedient,  then 
by  another.  Socialism  as  an  unperfected  institution  can- 
not abolish  poverty.  As  a  perfected  one  it  can.  Let  us 
therefore  labor  to  perfect  it. 


VIII 
THE  TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM 

Making  Conservatism  the  Ally  of  Caution.  There 
is  an  obstacle  to  the  substitution  of  democracy  for 
oligarchy  in  industrial  affairs  in  this  country,  not  without 
some  basis  in  reason.  It  is  the  aversion  of  the  average 
man  to  taking  a  momentous  step,  the  consequences  of 
which  cannot  be  predicted  with  certainty.  It  is  that 
characteristic  rooted  in  our  common  human  nature 
which  "makes  us  rather  bear  those  ills  we  have  than  fly 
to  others  that  we  know  not  of."  This  aversion  to  change 
made  our  ancestors  hesitate  to  substitute  democracy  for 
oligarchy  in  political  affairs  until  the  pressure  of  events 
forced  the  issue  upon  them.  It  is  a  trait  shared  by 
Americans  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  its  influence 
in  delaying  the  progress  of  democracy  in  the  past  is 
acknowledged  in  our  Declaration  of  Independence :  "Our 
experience  hath  shown  that  mankind  are  disposed  to 
suffer  while  evils  are  sufferable  than  to  right  themselves 
by  abolishing  the  forms  to  which  they  are  accustomed." 

Conservatism,  like  those  other  characteristics  of 
human  nature,  intelligence  and  self-interest,  can  be  used 
both  for  good  and  evil  ends.  It  may  be  used  to  obstruct 
all  change,  in  which  case  it  is  reactionary  and  harmful; 
or  it  may  be  used  to  obstruct  change  for  the  worse  only, 
in  which  case  it  is  rational  and  beneficent.  Too  com- 
monly conservatism  of  the  reactionary  type  is  mistaken 
for  caution.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  rather  an  extreme 
form  of  incaution.  It  is  the  commonest  cause  of  revolu- 
tions.   The  American   Revolution  was   caused  by   the 

176 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    177 

conservatism  of  the  House  of  Hanover,  the  French 
Revolution  by  the  conservatism  of  the  Bourbons,  and  the 
Russian  Revolution  by  that  of  the  Romanoffs.  Caution 
is  not  a  blind  aversion  to  change.  It  is  a  capacity  to 
avoid  dangerous  courses,  whether  they  involve  change 
or  not.  It  does  not  confuse  inactivity  with  safety.  It 
does  not  wait  for  necessity  to  force  action.  It  only 
waits  for  utility. 

In  the  previous  crises  of  American  history  methods 
of  applying  conservatism  cautiously  were  available,  but 
they  were  not  adopted.  The  counsel  of  the  really  fore- 
sighted  and  cautious  conservatives  was  not  heeded. 
Blind  conservatism  had  its  way  and  adopted  the  danger- 
ous and  costly,  instead  of  the  safe  and  economical,  policy. 
In  the  approaching  crisis  of  capitalism  history  is  quite 
likely  to  repeat  itself.  But  there  is  no  need  of  it  if 
conservatism,  instead  of  acting  as  the  ally  of  reaction, 
becomes  the  ally  of  caution.  If  we  apply  to  the  situa- 
tion the  reasonableness  characteristic  of  engineering 
operations,  the  transition  to  socialism  can  be  accom- 
*plished  not  only  peacefully,  but  without  the  slightest  in- 
convenience to  the  people  or  danger  to  their  prosperity. 
In  other  words,  a  good  political  engineer  should  be  able 
to  displace  one  institution  by  another  with  little  or  no 
inconvenience  to  the  life  of  the  community;  just  as  a 
good  civil  engineer  can  displace  an  old  railroad  bridge  by 
a  new  one  without  disturbing  the  operation  of  the  road. 

It  is  only  a  matter  of  using  the  same  planning  and 
foresight  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  The  sections 
which  follow  are  intended  to  suggest,  very  briefly,  a  line 
of  policy  which  is  presumably  adapted  to  do  this. 

What  is  the  Best  Way  to   Introduce   Socialism? 

The  safest,  best  and  quickest  method  to  successfully 
substitute  a  new  and  improved  institution  for  an  old  one 
is  the.  method  employed  in  engineering  to  substitute  a 


178    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

new  and  improved  structure  or  machine  for  an  old  one. 
No  one  can  tell  exactly  how  a  machine  of  new  design 
will  work,  and  after  it  is  installed  there  is  generally  re- 
quired quite  a  bit  of  alteration  and  "tuning  up"  to  make 
it  work  smoothly.  So  the  engineer  in  charge  of  a  big 
plant  does  not  shut  down  the  whole  establishment,  junk 
all  the  old  machines  and  install  new  ones  at  one  fell 
swoop.  He  might  be  making  a  mistake  in  putting  in  the 
new  machines,  and  it  would  be  disastrous  for  him  to 
make  it  on  a  large  scale.  So,  in  order  to  take  no  chances, 
he  first  tries  a  few  samples  of  the  new  machines.  He 
gives  them  a  try-out  in  practical  competition  with  the 
old  ones,  under  comparable  conditions,  and  carefully 
notes  the  result.  If  they  fail  to  stand  the  test  he  has 
only  the  expense  of  the  experiment  to  his  debit — he  has 
made  his  mistake  on  a  small  scale,  and  the  information 
he  gets  is  generally  worth  what  it  costs  him.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  they  stand  the  test,  he  is  then  in  a  position  to 
install  the  new  machines  in  place  of  the  old  ones,  taking 
no  chances  of  failure  and  knowing  beforehand  most  of 
the  alterations  which  will  be  required  to  make  them  work 
smoothly.  Moreover,  he  can  make  the  change  without 
shutting  down  the  plant,  replacing  a  few  machines  at  a 
tim-e,  until  finally  the  whole  concern  is  operating  with 
the  new  and  improved  machine,  and  no  disturbance  has 
been  caused  by  the  transition.  Thus  successful  and  un- 
disturbed operation  are  both  assured  by  employing  the 
experimental  method  of  procedure. 

Now  this  method  will  be  as  successful  as  a  means  of 
substituting  socialism  for  capitalism  in  industry  as  it 
would  be  for  substituting  turbine  for  reciprocating 
engines  in  a  power  station. 

Suppose,  for  example,  a  few  standard  and  widely 
differing  types  of  industry  to  be  selected;  say  coal 
mining,  cloth  making,  shoe  making,  meat  packing,  and 
large  scale  farming,  and  the  premium  method  of  coib- 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    179 

billing  efficiency  with  democracy — or  a  better  method  if 
such  is  available — tried  out  on  them.  Suppose  these 
plants  to  be  subjected  to  the  same  regulations  of  safety, 
sanitation,  hours  of  labor,  etc.,  to  which  private  plants 
of  the  same  kind  situated  in  the  same  region  are  subject, 
so  that  the  comparison  is  made  under  the  same  condi- 
tions. Each  publicly  operated  industry  then  will  have  to 
stand  on  its  own  feet  and  make  its  own  way  in  compe- 
tition with  private  enterprise,  subject  only  to  such  ad- 
vantages as  its  special  mode  of  organization  and  opera- 
tion provides.  We  should  then  have  some  means  of 
really  knowing  which  of  the  two  methods  was  the  better. 
We  could  decide  the  question,  not  by  speculating  about 
it  as  is  done  to-day,  but  by  appealing  to  actual  and  con- 
crete practices. 

When  the  speed  of  two  race  horses  is  to  be  compared 
they  are  made  to  race  together  under  equal  conditions. 
No  comparison  would  be  worth  much  if  one  were  at- 
tached to  a  gig  and  the  other  to  an  ice  wagon.  The  same 
rule  holds  if  the  relative  merits  of  two  methods  of  in- 
dustrial operation  are  to  be  compared.  They  must  be 
raced  together  under  equal  conditions  and  the  question 
decided  by  results. 

A  general  plan  for  making  such  a  comparison  along 
the  lines  suggested  is  a  matter  of  public  record.*  Its 
main  departure  from  the  plan  presented  in  the  last  chap- 
ter is  in  the  method  of  determining  prices,  which,  under 
competition,  require  to  be  competitive.  There  are  rea- 
sons for  believing  that  it  constitutes  a  practical  method 
of  transition  to  successful  democratic  collectivism,  be- 
cause it  is  a  safe  and  sure,  a  cautious  and  conservative, 
method.  It  requires  looking  before  leaping.  It  applies 
to  public  business  the  plain  wisdom  and  true  conserva- 
tism practised  by  every  wide  awake  business  man  in 

♦See  Final  Report  and  Testimony  submitted  to  Congress  by 
the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations.    Volume  9,  p.  8053. 


180    AMERICAlSriZED  SOCIALISM 

1  I 

the  conduct  of  his  private  business.  It  is  the  best  way 
possible  to  apply  in  the  concrete  the  maxim  "In  industry 
let  private  enterprise  do  the  things  it  can  do  best,  and 
let  the  government  do  the  things  it  can  do  best/'  since  it 
offers  a  means  of  really  deciding  which  agency  can 
carry  on  the  public  business  best.  Moreover,  by  the 
use  of  this  method  "best"  will  not  be  mistaken  for 
"cheapest,"  because  the  political  engineer,  unlike  the 
economist,  does  not  confound  commercial  with  produc- 
tive efficiency. 

And  what  would  be  the  expense  of  trying  sucfi  an 
experiment  ?  What  would  be  the  debit  charge  ?  Would 
it  be  anything  which  would  cripple  the  country  if  it 
failed?    Let  us  see. 

Some  of  the  enterprises  suggested  would  require  more 
capital  than  others,  but,  on  the  average,  practical,  self- 
supporting,  working  scale,  plants  should  not  cost  more 
than  $2,000,000  apiece  or  $10,000,000  for  the  five — less 
than  the  price  of  a  single  battleship.  Then  if  the  experi- 
ment lasted,  say  five  years,  it  would  cost  the  people  of 
this  country  about  two  cents  per  capita  per  year  for  five 
years  to  acquire  the  information  desired.  Of  course,  if 
the  tests  failed  the  people  would  have  nothing  but  their 
information  to  show  for  their  expenditure — and  it  would 
be  weir  worth  the  money,  if  only  to  stop  the  vast  waste 
of  time  now  expended  in  guessing  and  speculating  about 
the  matter.  A  nation  that  spends  every  year  many  dol- 
lars per  capita  for  superfluous  luxuries  can  afford  two 
cents  for  vital  knowledge.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
tests  succeeded  the  public  would  be  well  on  its  way  to 
settle  the  principal  industrial  problems  now  before  it  for 
settlement,  namely:  how  to  make  labor  and  the  tools  of 
labor  pull  together  in  the  interest  of  the  public  in  peace 
or  in  war,  how  to  make  wages  rise  as  the  cost  of  living 
falls,  and  how  to  successfully  substitute  democracy  for 
plutocracy  in  the  conduct  of  industry.    If  an  industrial 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    181 

i 

policy  can  be  proposed  by  the  adoption  of  which  the 
public  will  have  less  to  lose  and  more  to  gain  than  by 
this  one,  let  us  hope  some  one  who  has  the  ear  of  the 
people  will  propose  it.  But  why  not  cease  taking  it  out 
in  talk?  We  have  already  had  nearly  thirty  years  of 
theorizing  on  this  question  of  public  vs.  private  opera- 
tion of  industry.  Why  not  quit  theorizing  and  muddling 
and  drifting  and  put  the  matter  to  the  test  of  a  con- 
clusive experiment  ?    It  will  only  cost  a  few  cents  apiece. 

How  Should  Privately  Owned  Capital  be  Trans- 
ferred to  Public  Ownership  in  the  Transition  to  Social- 
ism? Probably  the  best  way  to  convert  disjunctive 
property  in  the  means  of  production  into  conjunctive 
is  by  means  of  government  bonds  rendered  by  proper 
legal  devices  practically  non-inheritable. 

The  privilege  of  living  by  ownership  has  been  prac- 
tised so  long  that  it  is  regarded  as  a  right,  not  alone  by 
those  who  practice  it,  but  by  those  at  whose  expense  it 
.is  practised.  Indeed,  as  shown  in  Chapter  III,  it  is  in 
fact  a  right,  so  long  as  the  public  refuses  to  attend  to  its 
own  business.  No  one  is  entitled  to  criticize  the  present 
practice  of  such  a  privilege,  because  the  public  has  pro- 
vided no  substitute  for  it.  If  the  capitalist,  by  his 
absorption  of  interest,  rent  and  dividends,  is  robbing  the 
people  to-day  it  is  because  the  people  insist  upon  being 
robbed.  They  insist,  not  in  words  to  be  sure,  but  in 
actions,  and  actions  speak  louder  than  words.  Those 
who  have  encouraged  the  practice  of  living  by  owning 
therefore  can  afford  to  be  tolerant  if  they  make  up  their 
minds  that  the  public  interest  will  be  served  by  its  dis- 
continuance. After  their  long  insistence  upon  the  pri- 
vate ownership  of  property  used  for  public  purposes  it 
would  hardly  be  reasonable  to  suddenly  confiscate  it  at 
the  expense  of  the  present  owners  whom  they  have  so 
persistently  encouraged  to  acquire  it.    It  should  be  paid 


182    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

for  in  bonds  bearing  the  rate  of  interest  usual  with  such 
government  securities,  and  if  the  bonds  are  taxed  it 
should  not  be  at  confiscatory  rates. 

In  suggesting  this  method  of  dealing  with  capitalism, 
I  am  following  the  sane,  if  disregarded,  policy  of 
the  sanest  of  Americans.  America  did  not  listen  to 
Lincoln's  advice  to  end  slavery  by  purchasing  the  slaves. 
She  lived  to  regret  it.  The  difficulty  of  abolishing 
capitalism  suddenly  is  the  same  as  the  difficulty  of  abol- 
ishing slavery  suddenly,  and  if  Americans  will  stick  to 
the  American  policy  of  learning  by  experience  they  will 
not  repeat  the  mistake  they  made  two  generations  ago. 
Lincoln's  position  with  regard  to  slavery  and  the  method 
of  abolishing  it  in  1858  is  the  position  which  socialists 
should  take  with  regard  to  capitalism  to-day.  If  you 
will  substitute  the  word  capitalism  for  the  word  slavery 
in  the  following  words  of  Lincoln  they  will  express  ex- 
actly the  position  of  sound  American  socialism  at  the 
present  time : 

"I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  there  be  a  man 
amongst  us  who  does  not  think  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is 
wrong,  ...  he  is  misplaced,  and  ought  not  to  be  with  us.  And 
if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us  who  is  so  impatient  of  it  as  a 
wrong  as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence  among  us  and  the  diffi- 
culty of  getting  rid  of  it  suddenly  in  a  satisfactory  way,  and  to 
disregard  the  constitutional  obligations  thrown  about  it,  that  man 
is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our  platform.  We  disclaim  sympathy 
with  him  in  practical  action.    He  is  not  placed  properly  with  us." 

But  though  it  would  not  be  reasonable  to  cut  off  com- 
pletely by  confiscation  the  privileges  of  the  capitalists  of 
to-day,  neither  would  it  be  reasonable  to  pass  on  those 
privileges  to  their  heirs  and  assigns  forever.  The  mis- 
take of  developing  and  sanctioning  capitalism  is  the 
mistake  of  the  past  and  the  present.  Unless  the  people 
of  the  future  insist  on  perpetuating  that  mistake  they 
should  not  be  asked  to  atone  for  it.     By  inheritance 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    183 

taxes,  wholly,  or  practically  confiscatory,  with  such  ac- 
cessory legal  devices  as  may  be  necessary,  bonds  ex- 
changed for  a  given  public  industry  should  be  made  to 
revert  to  the  government  within  a  generation  or  less 
after  their  issue.  If  this  policy  of  transition  is  com- 
bined with  that  suggested  in  the  last  section,  America  will 
avoid  the  miseries  she  suffered  in  the  transitions  of  1776 
and  1861. 

How  Will  the  Transition  to  Socialism  Affect  the 
Capitalist?  It  is  quite  generally  supposed  that  the 
substitution  of  socialism  for  capitalism  will  have  dire  re- 
sults for  the  capitalist,  but  the  supposition  is  not  justified. 
It  is  safe  to  say  that  for  all  but  a  small  fracton  of  the 
capitalist  class  the  change  will  bring  a  substantial  in- 
crease of  happiness,  assuming  of  course  that  reasonable 
methods  are  used  in  making  the  transition.  A  little  dis- 
cussion will  make  this  fairly  plain. 

To  begin  with  the  capitalist  will  not  be  deprived  of  his 
income  by  arbitrary  fiat.  There  will  be  no  law  passed 
forbidding  persons  to  receive  payment  for  ownership. 
Under  socialism  the  owners  of  stocks,  bonds,  etc.,  will 
receive  all  the  income  their  investments  earn,  but  with 
the  exception  of  the  non-inheritable  bonds  mentioned  in 
the  last  section  (which  will  disappear  in  about  a  genera- 
tion) securities  will  be  very  scarce,  and  hence  will  earn 
little  income.  This  is  because  the  function  formerly 
performed  by  the  capitalist  for  the  public  will  be  per- 
formed by  the  public  for  itself.  That  is,  the  capitalist 
will  disappear,  not  because  he  is  interdicted,  but  because 
with  the  disappearance  of  capitalism  he  has  become 
superfluous,  just  as  kings  became  superfluous  with  the 
disappearance  of  monarchy,  and  slave  holders  with  the 
disappearance  of  slavery. 

But  capitalism  is  not  likely  to  disappear  all  at  once 
because  the  public  is  not  likely  to  assimie  the  perform- 


184    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

ance  of  all  public  functions  at  once,  and  under  socialism 
— as  under  capitalism — the  capitalist  will  be  left  to  per- 
form for  profit  that  part  of  the  public  business  which  the 
public  does  not  perform  itself  for  service.  That  is, 
profits  will  be  less  under  socialism  only  because  the  pub- 
lic will  attend  to  its  own  business  more  thoroughly  than 
it  does  under  capitalism.  The  less  essential  parts  of  its 
business  will  no  doubt  be  left  for  a  long  time — perhaps 
indefinitely — to  private  operation.  As  noted  in  Chapter 
VI,  the  replacement  of  capitalism  by  socialism  is  for  the 
same  practical  purpose  as  the  replacement  of  the  stage 
coach  by  the  railroad,  namely,  improvement  of  public 
service.  It  is  not  a  doctrine  applied  to  please  the  doctrin- 
aire, nor  sought  as  an  end  in  itself.  Therefore,  although 
as  a  general  method  for  serving  the  public,  socialism  is 
as  superior  to  capitalism  as  the  railroad  is  to  the  stage 
coach,  yet  there  may  be  situations  in  which  it  will  be  wise 
to  retain  capitalism  just  as  there  are  situations  in  which 
the  stage  coach  still  operates  to  advantage.  One  of 
these  I  have  mentioned  on  page  158,  namely,  in  the  de- 
velopment of  new  processes  and  apparatus  either  for 
productive  or  consumptive  purposes.  Thus  the  invest- 
ment of  capital  would  tend  to  concentrate  in  the  field  of 
potential,  but  not  actual,  public  industry,  and  conse- 
quently this  line  of  end-eavor  would  be  stimulated  to 
great  activity  without  prejudice  either  to  the  principle  or 
the  practice  of  democracy.  For  as  fast  as  a  new  kind 
of  enterprise  proved  itself  publicly  useful  by  developing 
into  an  actual  public  industry  it  would,  if  it  were  suffi- 
ciently important,  be  taken  over  by  the  public,  and  the 
money  paid  for  it  would  become  available  for  the  further 
development  of  new  ideas.  There  seems  indeed  every- 
thing to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose  in  the  retention  of 
capitalism  in  this  field  of  enterprise. 

In  the  transition  to  socialism  the  capitalist  will  have 
the  same  opportunity  as  any  one  else  to  perform  the 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    185 

managerial  functions  which  he  quite  commonly  per- 
forms to-day.  If  he  shows  himself  qualified  he  will  get 
the  job  and  be  paid  in  proportion  to  what  he  does,  instead 
of  to  what  he  owns ;  but  "pull'*  will  not  avail  him,  as  it 
does  under  capitalism.  Nepotism,  which  flourishes  so 
commonly  in  the  business  world,  cannot  flourish  under 
an  efficient  civil  service  system.  Control  of  a  public 
function  cannot  be  handed  from  father  to  son  by  eco- 
nomic any  more  than  by  political  kings.  Such  control 
will  go  to  the  person  best  qualified,  so  far  as  impartial 
tests  can  be  developed  for  discovering  him.  Is  there  any 
objection  to  this?  Those  capitalists  who  fail  to  qualify 
for  managerial  functions  will  take  whatever  job  they  can 
qualify  for,  just  as  any  one  else  must  do,  and  become 
useful,  if  inconspicuous,  members  of  the  cooperative 
commonwealth. 

Of  course  in  the  transition  to  socialism  excessive  in- 
comes will  tend  to  disappear,  although  the  survival  of 
persons  holding  government  bonds  would  permit  of  the 
survival  of  a  much  dwindled  plutocracy  for  a  few  years. 
With  this  exception,  incomes  throughout  the  community 
will  tend  toward  equality  in  the  manner  described  on 
page  1 68,  and  this  will  mean  the  practical  disappearance 
of  the  private  servant  class,  except  for  invalids  or  other 
disabled  persons  whose  insurance  will  protect  their  help- 
lessness. 

Some  people  will  complain  that  society  cannot  get 
along  without  domestic  servants,  just  as  the  slave  holders 
of  ante-bellum  days  complained  that  it  could  not  get 
along  without  household  slaves.  It  is  the  old  demand 
for  somebody  to  do  the  dirty  work.  Such  persons  see 
only  their  own  point  of  view.  They  ignore  the  point  of 
view  of  the  servant  and  the  slave.  Under  socialism  if 
a  person  can  afford  a  private  servant,  he  doubtless  can 
have  one,  but  it  is  going  to  take  quite  a  lot  of  money  to 
make  such  a  position  sufficiently  attractive  to  compete 


186    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

with  the  government.  Under  sociaHsm  the  domestic 
service  performed  to-day  by  a  household  pariah  will  be 
performed  largely  by  public  agencies ;  machinery  and  co- 
operative methods  will  increase,  and  the  drudgery  which 
such  service  demands  to-day  will  practically  disappear. 
Indeed  drudgery  of  all  kinds  will  diminish  as  machines 
take  the  place  of  men  in  industry,  for  among  the  other 
novelties  to  be  introduced  by  socialism  will  be  the  use 
of  labor-saving  machinery  to  save  labor. 

Any  estimate  of  the  range  of  compensation  under 
socialism  must  be  in  the  nature  of  a  rather  wild  guess, 
but  in  order  to  have  something  definite  to  go  on,  we  will 
venture  one.  Assuming  socialism  to  attain  a  stage  of 
moderate  maturity  within  a  generation  or  so,  let  us 
guess  that  the  range  of  wages  would  be  between  $2,000 
and  $6,000  a  year,  with  a  few  extra  exacting  jobs  yield- 
ing more  than  the  larger  sum,  and  a  few  extra  easy  ones 
yielding  less  than  the  smaller  one. 

Now  how  would  such  a  change  in  the  condition  of 
things  affect  the  life  of  the  capitalist  class  as  it  is  to-day? 
Differently  according  to  their  present  scale  of  living,  of 
course.  The  bulk  of  the  capitalists  are  not  rich.  The 
merchants,  farmers,  jobbers  and  other  struggling  and 
saving  persons  of  the  so-called  upper  middle  class  doubt- 
less average  less  in  yearly  income  than  they  would  re- 
ceive under  socialism,  yet  they  constitute  the  majority 
of  the  capitalist  class.  The  moderately  rich  would  be 
compelled  to  curtail  their  expenditures  moderately,  and 
the  excessively  rich,  excessively.  This  might  cause  some 
hardship  temporarily;  but  consider  the  benefits  that  the 
whole  capitalist  class  would  receive  in  return.  They 
would,  in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  community,  live 
in  security,  without  fear  of  possible  destitution,  they 
would  be  free  from  the  worry  of  guarding  their  money, 
or  conducting  their  business  in  the  midst  of  a  world 
characterized  by  the  necessity  of  constant  struggle,  con- 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    187 

stant  watchfulness  and  constant  self-assertion.  The 
corrosive  influence  of  bargaining  would  be  absent.  No 
longer  would  it  be  necessary  to  try  for  the  better,  in 
order  not  to  get  the  worst,  of  a  trade.  Conflict  of  inter- 
est between  men  would  disappear — not  only  between 
former  business  rivals,  but  between  the  managing  and 
the  operating  forces  of  industry. 

There  would,  in  fact,  be  only  four  varieties  of  capital- 
ist who  would  not  be  happier  under  a  reasonably  man- 
aged cooperative  commonwealth  than  they  are  to-day; 
namely,  those  whose  income  permits  and  whose  happi- 
ness requires  either:  (i)  excessive  idleness,  (2)  exces- 
sive luxury,  (3)  ostentation,  or  (4)  excessive  power 
over  the  lives  of  otJiers.  These  are  the  only  kinds  of 
persons  in  the  community  whose  interests  would  not 
be  benefited  by  the  introduction  of  socialism,  and  even 
they  would  be  benefited  if  they  changed  their  tastes — as 
they  could  and  would  do  when  necessity  required  it.  At 
any  rate,  they  constitute  an  insignificant  fraction  of  the 
population,  and  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  present  interests 
of  such  a  fraction  could  be  served  without  sacrificing  the 
interests  of  society  at  large,  including  the  bulk  of  the 
capitalist  class  itself.  It  is  better  for  the  few  to  adjust 
their  lives  to  the  reasonable  demands  of  the  many,  than 
for  the  many  to  adjust  their  lives  to  the  unreasonable 
demands  of  the  few.  If  happiness  is  to  be  successfully 
secured  in  society  the  lesser  interest  must  always  give 
way  to  the  greater. 

How  Will  the  Transition  to  Socialism  Affect  the 
Non-Capitalist?  The  distinction  between  the  capital- 
ist class  and  the  working  class  usually  expressed  by  the 
orthodox  socialist  is  one  which  leaves  out  the  majority 
of  the  people  in  America  to-day.  It  is  a  distinction 
which  fits  a  doctrine  better  than  the  facts.  I  have  already 
pointed  out  (page  41)  that  the  more  useful  distinction,  in 


188    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

!  ;^ 

this  country  at  least,  is  that  between  capitalist  and  non- 
capitalist,  the  very  rich  non-working  capitalist  being  the 
extreme  case  of  the  one  class,  and  the  very  poor  wage 
worker  without  a  savings  bank  account  being  the  ex- 
treme case  of  the  other.  Roughly  speaking,  of  course, 
the  capitalist  class  includes  the  richer  members  of 
society,  the  non-capitalist  the  poorer,  though  there  are 
many  exceptions.  We  have  seen  that  of  th-e  capitalists 
only  four  kinds  would  not  be  benefited  by  the  change  to 
socialism.  Now  it  is  these  four  kinds  of  persons,  and 
only  these  four,  among  the  non-capitalists  who  would  not 
be  ben-efited  by  the  change.  But  while  the  proportion  of 
the  capitalist  class  belonging  in  these  categories  might 
possibly  reach  ten  per  cent,  the  proportion  among  the 
non-capitalist  class  would  not  reach  one  per  cent.  All 
the  rest  of  th-e  non-capitalist  class  would  be  benefited, 
for  the  most  part  in  a  very  high  degree,  not  only  by  the 
same  things  which  would  benefit  the  majority  of  the 
capitalist  class,  namely  increased  leisure,  peace,  security, 
and  harmony  with  their  fellow  men,  but  by  more  inter- 
esting work  and  higher  pay. 

The  non-capitalist  would  be  more  benefited  by  the 
introduction  of  socialism  than  the  capitalist  because  he 
is  for  the  most  part  more  harmed  by  capitalism,  though 
as  a  matter  of  fact  the  higher  paid  wage  earners  are 
fully  as  well  oflf,  often  better  oflF,  than  the  poorer  capi- 
talists and  professional  men.  The  greatest  benefit,  of 
course,  would  be  conferred  upon  the  poorer  class  of 
workers,  the  manual  workers  in  particular,  because  they 
are  the  worst  victims  of  capitalism  among  a  population 
practically  all  of  whom  are  victimized  in  some  degree. 
The  leveling  up  process  characteristic  of  socialism 
would  bring  these  people  to  a  plane  of  living  character- 
istic of  the  higher  paid  workers  of  to-day;  would  give 
them  security,  leisure,  and  an  outlook  of  increasing 
prosperity,  and  would  insure  their  children  the  same 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    189 

opportunity  for  position  in  the  community  as  the  chil- 
dren of  the  capitalist.  As  socialism  matured,  of  course, 
the  distinction  between  capitalist  and  non-capitalist 
would  disappear,  because  the  former  class  would  disap- 
pear, and  all  able-bodied  and  able-minded  persons  would 
eventually  take  their  places  as  working  parts  of  the 
great  cooperative  commonwealth  whose  object  is  the 
happiness  of  society  as  a  whole,  each  part  performing 
a  useful  function  and  having  equal  opportunity  for  ad- 
vancement with  every  other  part.  The  natural  in- 
equality between  person  and  person,  determined  by 
heredity,  will  of  course  exist  under  socialism.  There 
will  also  be  the  inequality  of  authority,  political  or  eco- 
nomic, necessary  to  efficient  cooperation.  But  aside 
from  these  there  is  no  need  of  inequality  among  the 
members  of  a  cooperative  commonwealth,  and  so  the 
curse  of  caste  would  tend  to  disappear  with  the  curse  of 
class.  And  this  incidental  benefit  of  socialism  would  not 
be  the  least  among  those  which  it  would  confer  upon 
mankind. 

Conscious  Improvement  of  Institutions.  Institu- 
tions are  the  habits  of  society.  And  it  is  as  easy  for  a 
nation  to  drift  into  bad  institutions  as  for  an  individual 
to  drift  into  bad  habits.  Such  institutions  as  monarchy, 
slavery  and  capitalism  are  as  easy  to  drift  into  as  habits 
like  dawdling  or  drinking — and  as  hard  to  drift  out  of. 
Indeed  nations  cannot  drift  out  of  them  any  more  than 
an  individual  can  overcome  evil  habits  by  drifting. 
They  can  only  be  overcome  by  the  action  of  the  violent 
drug  of  war — which  is  by  no  means  a  sure  or  permanent 
cure — or  by  deliberately  taking  thought  and  setting  our 
steps  in  the  right  direction  through  the  use  of  reason. 

Conscious  experiment  indeed  is  not  a  roundabout  or 
slow  road  to  national  progress.  It  is  the  shortest  road 
available.     For  our  present  muddle-methods  are  only  a 


190    AMERICANIZED  SOCIALISM 

j  ^ 

sort  of  blundering,  drifting  experimentation,  which  at 
times  takes  us  backward  instead  of  forward.  Why  not 
experiment  with  our  eyes  open  instead  of  shut?  Why 
not  first  determine  clearly  where  we  are  going,  and  then 
find  out  by  rational  research  how  to  get  there?  I  have 
already  pointed  out,  and  in  closing  I  wish  to  point  out 
again,  how  readily  a  great  community  by  concerted  ac- 
tion can  solve  problems  and  create  improved  institutions 
with  practically  no  risk  and  but  trivial  cost  per  capita. 
It  can  do  this  because  great  and  small  scales  are  relative. 
A  sufficiently  large  scale  industrial  or  political  experi- 
ment to  be  conclusive  can  be  carried  out  by  a  community 
of  a  hundred  million  people  at  a  trifling  cost  per  capita, 
and  yet  as  much  knowledge  secured  as  if  it  were  con- 
ducted by  a  community  hundreds  of  times  smaller  and 
h-ence  hundreds  of  times  less  able  to  bear  the  expense  of 
experiment.  The  United  States  is  thus  able  to  experi- 
ment with  institutions  on  a  scale  large  enough  to  be  con- 
clusive, and  yet  make  all  its  mistakes  on  a  small  scale — 
a  scale  relatively  so  small  as  to  bring  no  perceptible 
burden  to  the  average  man.  It  is  for  an  analogous 
reason  that  our  country  could  dig  the  Panama  Canal 
with  a  scarcely  perceptible  eflfort,  while  a  small  com- 
munity would  have  been  swamped  by  the  task. 

The  knowkdge  required  for  safe  and  rapid  political, 
social  and  moral  progress  can  be  as  readily  obtained  if 
we  will  only  dig  in  the  right  place.  It  is  as  easy  to 
dig  into  the  subject  of  human  cooperative  conduct  and 
direct  the  stream  of  self-interest  and  intelligence  to  the 
service  of  mankind,  as  to  dig  into  the  dirt  of  Panama 
and  direct  the  Chagres  river  to  the  service  of  commerce. 
It  is  only  a  matter  of  turning  our  attention  and  effort  in 
that  direction.  And  the  task  will  yield  vastly  greater 
dividends  of  usefulness.  The  improvement  in  commerce 
wrought  by  the  Panama  Canal  is  a  great  one.  The  dig- 
ging of  the  canal  was  a  very  useful  piece  of  work  and  a 


TRANSITION  TO  SOCIALISM    191 

splendid  example  of  what  cooperative  enterprise  on  a 
national  scale  will  accomplish  against  the  obstacles  im- 
posed by  Nature  to  human  achievement.  But  it  sinks  to 
insignificance  compared  to  what  could  be  accomplished 
were  the  same  effort  scientifically  directed  to  overcoming 
the  obstacles  imposed  by  human  habit  and  tradition. 
The  greatest  obstacles  encountered  by  men  in  this  world 
are  those  which  they  place  in  their  own  path.  Reason 
alone  can  remove  them.  The  Panama  Canal  cost  about 
four  hundred  million  dollars.  It  is  worth  it.  But 
imagine  what  the  expenditure  of  such  a  sum  would 
accomplish  if  it  were  expended  in  scientifically  studying 
and  improving  by  deliberate  experiment  the  institutions 
which  control  all  our  lives. 

Let  us  then  consider  directing  our  effort  to  political  as 
well  as  to  mechanical,  electrical  and  other  branches  of 
engineering.  Let  us  apply  reason  as  consistently  to  the 
achievement  of  ultimate  as  of  proximate  ends.  Let  us 
not  be  satisfied  with  mere  doing.  Let  us  be  sure  our 
doing  is  right  doing.  Let  us  use  and  not  abuse  the  stu- 
pendous forces  which  the  experimental  method  in  social 
affairs  places  at  our  disposal,  directing  them  to  human 
and  not  merely  physical  achievement.  Let  us  see  to  it 
that  the  Aladdin's  lamp  of  science  is  not  perverted  to  the 
service  of  the  Mammon  of  commercialism  or  the  Moloch 
of  war.  Let  us  hold  it  steadily  to  the  service  of  human- 
ity, making  reason  the  master  not  the  slave  of  tradition, 
the  ruler  of  the  moral  as  well  as  of  the  material  world. 
Let  man  expel  medievalism  from  the  control  of  moral, 
as  he  has  already  expelled  it  from  that  of  physical, 
things,  to  the  end  that  scientific  means  may  be  directed  to 
none  but  useful  ends,  and  that  we  may  erect  upon  a 
material  civilization,  already  by  science  advanced  beyond 
the  dreams  of  former  generations,  a  moral  civilization 
transcending  those  of  any  but  our  own. 


"'^V    AND    TO    1    °  ^°  CENTS  o,"^  '"ENALTv 

^VE«ouE.   "°  "oo  ON  r7.°^'^^;ou«';; 


^»2J-i00„,-r,'33 


IB  663U4 


385285 


UNIVEE^ITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


